Dahlsten v. Lee, C06-3087-MWB.
| Decision Date | 23 January 2008 |
| Docket Number | No. C06-3087-MWB.,C06-3087-MWB. |
| Citation | 531 F.Supp.2d 1029 |
| Parties | Frank DAHLSTEN, Plaintiff, v. David LEE, Individually and in his official capacity as the mayor of the City of Dakota City, and the City of Dakota City, Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Northern District of Iowa |
Blake Parker, Blake, Parker Law Office, Fort Dodge, IA, for Plaintiff.
Scott J. Beattie, Peddicord, Wharton, Spencer & Hook, Des Moines, IA, for Defendants.
On December 15, 2006, plaintiff Frank Dahlsten filed a complaint in this court against David Lee, individually and in his official capacity as the mayor of the City of Dakota City and the City of Dakota City. This lawsuit arises from the denial of the Dakota City Council to permit plaintiff Dahlsten and his family to keep the family's pet Vietnamese pot-bellied pig, Sid, at their home. In his complaint, plaintiff Dahlsten alleges that defendants violated plaintiff's rights under the Equal Protection Clause and the Constitution of the State of Iowa by denying him and his family the same rights enjoyed by nonminority citizens to have agricultural animals as pets. Plaintiff Dahlsten also alleges that defendants violated the Iowa Civil Rights Act, Iowa Code Ch. 216, by not allowing his family to keep an agricultural animal as a family pet. Finally, plaintiff Dahlsten alleges, that defendants violated the Iowa Civil Rights Act by retaliating against him for asserting his rights.
Defendants have filed a Motion for Summary Judgment on plaintiff Dahlsten's claims against them. First, in their motion, defendants assert that plaintiff Dahlsten's § 1983 claims fail as a matter of law. Second, regarding plaintiff Dahlsten's § 1983 claims against. David Lee, defendants contend that defendant Lee is entitled to qualified immunity. Third, concerning plaintiff Dahlsten's § 1983 claims against defendant Dakota City, defendants contend that these claims fail because there is no valid underlying constitutional claim or, in the alternative, plaintiff Dahlsten's claims fail because he cannot show that there was a pattern or practice underlying the alleged violation. Finally, defendants contend that plaintiff Dahlsten's state law claims under the Iowa Civil Rights Act fail as a matter of law. Plaintiff has filed a timely response to defendants! Motion For Summary Judgment.
Before turning to a legal analysis of defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment, the court must first identify the standards for disposition of a motion for summary judgment, as well as the undisputed factual background of this case.
The summary judgment record reveals that the following facts are undisputed. Plaintiff Frank Dahlsten ("Dahlsten") is a resident of Dakota City, Iowa. The address of plaintiff Dahlsten's home is zoned residential. Defendant Lee is a resident of Dakota City, Iowa, and, at all times relevant, was the Mayor of Dakota City. Defendant the. City of Dakota City is a government subdivision of the State of Iowa organized under Iowa State law.
In September of 1973; Dakota, City passed its first zoning ordinance, the City of Dakota City Zoning Ordinance ("the Zoning Ordinance"). The Zoning Ordinance sets out the following six possible toning classifications for land`in Dakota City: (1) Class "A" residential districts; (2) Class "B" multiple family residential districts; (3) Class "R" retail business districts; (4) Class "C" commercial districts; (5) Class "D" commercial and light industrial districts; and, (6) Class "E" heavy industrial districts. A map attached to the Zoning Ordinance sets out the zoning areas within Dakota City,
The following uses of land are permitted in all Class "A" residential districts:
A. One- or two-family dwelling units.
B. Single family detached dwellings, provided that all new single-family detached dwellings for which building permits have been issued on or after December, 1994, the minimum dimension of the main body of the dwelling unit shall not be less than twenty (20) feet.
C. Churches and places of worship and parochial schools.
D. Public schools, public libraries, parks and playgrounds.
E. Greenhouses and customary agricultural operations, but no livestock or fowl are to be raised in the district.
F. Small home operations, provided there are no signs or other evidence of such use other than a small announcement or professional sign not over two (2) square feet in size.
G. Other customary accessory uses and buildings,`provided such uses are incidental to the principal use and do not include any activity conducted as a business.
H. Fraternity, sorority and lodge houses
Dakota City Zoning Ordinance § 165.07, Plaintiffs App. at 019.
Under the Zoning Ordinance, the following uses of land are permitted in all Class "B" multiple family residential districts:
A. All uses permitted in Class A Residential Districts, subject to all the restrictions specified in Class A Districts.
B. Multiple-family dwelling units.
C. Boarding and lodging houses.
D. Hospitals, day nurseries, nursing and convalescent homes and clinics.
Dakota City Zoning Ordinance § 165.08, Plaintiffs App. at 020. In the next higher use classification, Class "R" retail business districts, the following uses of land are permitted:
1. Any use permitted in a Class A or Class B Residential District.
2. Bakeries.
3. Banks.
4. Barber shops or beauty parlors.
5. Bus stations.
6. Electrical and shoe repair shops.
7. Heating, plumbing and tinsmithing, provided the display, service and storage of all products and items are conducted within a building.
8. Hotels.
9. Interior decorating shops.
10. Messenger or telegraph service station.
11. Printing shop.
12. Professional and business offices.
13. Photographic gallery.
14. Public garage, provided the display, repair, storage and equipping of both new and used cars and vehicles are conducted within a building.
15. Restaurants 16. Sales and service of farm implements, provided the display, service and storage of same are conducted within a building.
17. Service establishments only when totally enclosed within a building and which are not objectionable due to emission, of odor, smoke, dust, gas or noise.
18. Taverns.
19. Theaters.
20. Laundry cleaning establishments.
21. Conduct of retail business entirely within a building.
Dakota City Zoning Ordinance § 165.09, Plaintiffs App. at 021.
The following uses of land are permitted in all Class "C" commercial districts:
1. Any use permitted in the "R" District, except taverns and hotels.
2. Filling stations.
3. Hospitals and clinics for animals, but not open kennels or yards where animals are confined or exercised.
4. Milk collecting depots.
5. Motels and tourist courts.
6. Public garage, provided the repair, storage and equipping of both new and used cars and vehicles are conducted within a building. However, the display for sale purposes of new and used cars and vehicles need not be conducted within a building.
7. Sales and service of farm implements, provided the repair, storage and equipping of same are conducted within a building, however, the display for sale purposes of new and used farm implements need not be conducted within a building.
8. Advertising signs.
Dakota City Zoning Ordinance § 165.10, Plaintiff's App. at 021-022. The next higher use classification is Class "D" commercial and light industrial districts, in which the following uses of land are permitted:
1. Any use permitted in the "C" District.
2 Amusement enterprises such as dance halls and skating rinks.
3. Taverns.
4. Freight and passenger stations and grounds.
5. Hotels.
6. Manufacture or assembly of tools, dies, machinery, hardware products or sheet metal products.
7. Bottling plants.
8. Fuel and building materials, but not including junk yards.
9. Ice cream and cheese factories and creameries.
10. Truck terminals.
11. Used car sales or storage lot and implement sales and storage lots.
12. Warehouses.
13. Wholesale establishments.
14. Mobile homes.
15. Mobile home parks.
16. Any other commercial enterprise which is not noxious or offensive due to emission of odor, gas, dust, smoke or noise, and which will not substantially or permanently injure the appropriate use of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Dundon v. Kirchmeier
...situated, and (2) that the plaintiff was singled out on the basis of a prohibited characteristic, such as race." Dahlsten v. Lee, 531 F. Supp. 2d 1029, 1043 (N.D. Iowa 2008) (citing Ellebracht v. Police Bd. of Metro. Police Dep't of St. Louis, 137 F.3d 563, 566 (8th Cir. 1998) ). "A plainti......