Copp v. Shane
| Decision Date | 07 December 2018 |
| Docket Number | 2:18-cv-00181-JAW |
| Parties | ELVIN COPP and RANDALL COPP Plaintiffs, v. WILLIAM SHANE, WILLIAM LONGELY, and TOWN OF CUMBERLAND, Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Maine |
In conjunction with state tort claims, Plaintiffs, who are town residents, brought this suit pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1983 and the Maine Civil Rights Act as well as a Maine Freedom of Access Act claim against a Maine municipality and two town employees seeking compensatory damages, punitive damages, injunctive relief, declaratory relief, and attorney's fees stemming from an alleged trespass on the construction site of one of the Plaintiff's single family residence. In this seemingly straightforward, but surprisingly complicated motion to dismiss, the Court concludes that the Plaintiffs' state tort claims are barred by the applicable statute of limitations, and that the federal and state constitutional claims either do not state a claim or are barred by qualified immunity. The Court remands the state freedom of access act claim to state court.
On March 27, 2018, Elvin and Randall Copp (the Copps), filed a complaint in Cumberland County Superior Court for the state of Maine alleging various state tort claims, violations of their United States and Maine constitutional rights, as well as a violation of the Maine Freedom of Access Act (FOAA) by the Defendants. State Court Record, Attach. 3 Compl. (ECF No. 2) (2018 Compl.). On May 7, 2018, the Defendants filed a Notice of Removal to this Court. Notice of Removal (ECF No. 1). On May 21, 2018, the Defendants moved to dismiss the Copps' complaint under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) and 12(b)(1). Mot. to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim and Mot. to Dismiss for Lack of Subject Jurisdiction (ECF No. 4) (Defs.' Mot.). The Copps responded on June 11, 2018 and the Defendants filed their reply on June 25, 2018. Resp. in Opp'n to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim and Mot. to Dismiss for Lack of Subject Jurisdiction (ECF No. 5) ; Reply to Resp. in Opp'n to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim and Mot. to Dismiss for Lack of Subject Jurisdiction (ECF No. 6) (Defs.' Reply).
The Copps are residents of the town of Cumberland of Cumberland County, Maine. 2018 Compl. ¶¶ 2-3. William R. Shane is the town manager of the town ofCumberland and William Longley is the code enforcement officer (CEO) for the town of Cumberland. Id. ¶¶ 5-6. The town of Cumberland is a Maine municipality. Id. ¶ 4.
Elvin Copp owns a parcel of property (the Copp property) located off Pointer Way in Cumberland, as shown on town of Cumberland Tax Map R-07, Lot 57C. Id. ¶ 7. Around July 28, 2009, the Copps began construction of a single-family residence on the Copp property after acquiring their first building permit from Mr. Longley. Id. ¶ 11. Randall Copp has since supervised the construction of his single-family residence. Id. ¶ 8. The Copps were issued a building permit around May 8, 2014 for the single-family residence and they performed work continuously for 180 days. Id. ¶¶ 13-14.2 The Copp property was posted "No Trespassing." Id. ¶ 15. Around August 5, 2015, without a request for inspection or authorization to enter the property, Randall Copp found Mr. Longley on the Copp property. Id. ¶ 16.
Before September 24, 2015, the Copps had requested that any town official enter the property in the presence of either of the Copps. Id. ¶ 17. On or about September 24, 2015, the Copps took a photo of Mr. Shane entering and exiting the Copp property when neither Elvin Copp nor Randall Copp was present. Id. ¶¶ 18-19.3
On or about October 27, 2015, the Copps received a Notice of Violation forCorrective Action (the Notice). Id. ¶ 20. The Notice stated that Mr. Longley had conducted a road inspection of the Copp property on September 24, 2015. Id. ¶ 21. This was the first Notice the Copps had received that Mr. Longley entered the Copp property on September 24, 2015. Id. The Notice was corrected on January 20, 2016 (Corrected Notice), and it cited a violation of Ordinance § 315-76(A) for "lack of progress or inspection during the 6 months after issuance, hence the permit has expired on or about 11-08-2014" but did not contain details as to how Mr. Longley made this determination over one year from the date of the alleged expiration. Id. ¶ 22.
The town board conducted a hearing concerning the Corrected Notice on February 11, 2016, as proscribed by § 315-77(D)(3) of the ordinance. Id. ¶ 23.4 At this hearing, the Copps put forth their appeal, along with photographs, invoices, drawings and additional evidence, which included the testimony of Randall Copp, addressing the alleged violations contained in the Corrected Notice. Id. ¶ 24. Randall Copp testified that the camera he installed at the entrance of the property captured Mr. Shane entering and exiting the property on September 24, 2015 and that he had notified both Mr. Shane and Mr. Longley on two prior occasions that towns employees were not authorized to be on the Copp property without the presence of either himself or Elvin Copp. Id. ¶¶ 25-26. Randall Copp also testified with photographs that theCopp property was posted "No Trespassing" prior to September 24, 2015. Id. ¶ 27.5
At the end of the Copps' presentation, the town board found that it lacked jurisdiction to determine issues of trespass. Id. ¶ 28. Counsel for the Copps objected to any evidence obtained by Mr. Longley from his road inspection, claiming it was improper and unlawfully obtained. Id. ¶ 29. Mr. Longley made several statements "regarding a proposed Consent Agreement and testified as to the intent and the motivation of the Plaintiffs with regards to said Consent Agreement" and subsequently, "introduced a copy of the unsigned Consent Agreement into evidence." Id. ¶¶ 30-31. The Copps view as improper Mr. Longley's statements about the Consent Agreement and his introduction of the unsigned agreement into evidence. Id.6 The board accepted Mr. Longley's testimony derived from his unauthorized entry onto the Copp property. Id. ¶ 32.7
In his initial testimony, Mr. Longley conceded that progress may have been made during the six months following the issuance of the most recent building permit and that he had no evidence that a period of 180 days had lapsed since May 8, 2014 without continued progress. Id. ¶ 33. Mr. Longley also acknowledged that the Coppspresented him with photos taken prior to the Corrected Notice but that he failed and refused to view the photos. Id. ¶ 34. Counsel for the Copps sought to cross-examine Mr. Longley, but the chair of the town board denied this request. Id. ¶ 35. The town board considered issues, testimony, and documents outside the scope of the Corrected Notice. Id. ¶ 36.8
The Copps provided testimony and documentation pursuant to § 315(C) of the ordinance, submitted a description of the intended use of the land and buildings, and provided further detail as Mr. Longley required, such as letters from both an engineering firm and an architect. Id. ¶ 42. Mr. Longley neither testified nor submitted evidence that the Copps knew or should have known that a demolition permit was required for the conversion of the manufactured office building to a single-family residence. Id. ¶ 44. The Copps relied on Mr. Longley's issuance of the building permit to proceed with the conversion in their application. Id. ¶ 45.
At the end of the hearing, a motion to adopt the corrective actions of the Corrected Notice was submitted and passed without a statement of findings or conclusions. Id. ¶¶ 37-38.9 The town board determined that the Copps had made progress during the 180 days after May 8, 2014, the date the town issued the permit, and that the permit did not expire on November 8, 2014. Id. ¶ 46. While the town board concluded there was no violation of ordinance § 315-76(A) and no lapse in thecurrent building permit, the board continued the "Stop Work Order" that Mr. Longley implemented with the Corrected Notice "since no building permit is valid [,] no continued road construction is authorized or allowed until all violations have been corrected to the satisfaction of the Town of Cumberland." Id. ¶ 47. The town board required the Copps to request a "demolition permit or additional information to Mr. Longley" despite no notice from Mr. Longley that such a permit was required. Id. ¶ 48.10 The board also enforced the demolition ordinance. Id. ¶ 49.11 No notice of the board's decision was provided to the Copps or their counsel within seven days of this decision. Id. ¶ 50.
The Copps' request for reconsideration stated that the board's decision failed to apply the proper standard set forth in § 315-77(B)(1) of the ordinance. Id. ¶ 51. The Copps asserted the board failed and refused to determine whether Mr. Longley's decisions were in conformity with the town's ordinances, to interpret the meaning in cases of uncertainty as provided in ordinance § 315-77(B)(1), and to determine if Mr. Longley's entry on to the Copps' property was conducted in accordance with IRC-R § 104.6. Id. ¶¶ 52-53.
The Copps served a Notice of Claim pursuant to the Maine Tort Claims Act (MTCA), 14 M.R.S. § 8107 et seq, on the Defendants on or about March 29, 2016. Id.¶ 54. Around February 27, 2017, the Copps made a FOAA,12 1 M.R.S. § 400 et seq, request regarding all records referencing their property specifically held by Mr. Shane and Mr. Longley, and the Copps received an acknowledgement that their request was received on or about March 2, 2017. Id. ¶ 56. The Copps made another FOAA request on March 30, 2017. Id. ¶ 57. The Copps were not provided with requested information and their request was denied. Id. ¶ 58.
On March...
To continue reading
Request your trial