Discovery House v. Consolidated City, Indianapolis

• Decision Date: 01 April 1999
• Docket Number: No. 2:98 CV 437.,2:98 CV 437.
• Citation: 43 F.Supp.2d 997
• Parties: DISCOVERY HOUSE, INC., Plaintiff, v. CONSOLIDATED CITY OF INDIANAPOLIS, et al., Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Northern District of Indiana

43 F.Supp.2d 997

DISCOVERY HOUSE, INC., Plaintiff, v. CONSOLIDATED CITY OF INDIANAPOLIS, et al., Defendants.

No. 2:98 CV 437.

United States District Court, N.D. Indiana, Hammond Division.

April 1, 1999.

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

Greg A. Bouwer, Robert P. Kennedy, Spangler, Jennings and Dougherty, PC, Merrillville, IN, for Discovery House, Inc., plaintiff.

John T. Roy, Stephenson, Daly, Morow and Kurnik, Indianapolis, IN, Dale R. Simmons, City of Indianapolis, City-County Legal Division, Indianapolis, IN, for defendants.

ORDER

MOODY, District Judge.

In the complaint initiating this action plaintiff Discovery House, Inc. alleges that the defendants, the Consolidated City of Indianapolis and the Metropolitan Board of Zoning Appeals of Marion County ("BZA"), intentionally discriminated against Discovery House on the basis of an animus against Discovery House's clientele, when the BZA ruled that Discovery House's proposed drug rehabilitation treatment center to be located at 5626 East 16th Street in Indianapolis (hereinafter, "methadone clinic") was not allowed by applicable zoning regulations. Although Discovery House eventually succeeded in obtaining reversal of this decision via the statutory process available for appealing the BZA's decision to the Indiana state courts, Discovery House seeks damages for the attendant two-year delay during which it could not open the clinic. Discovery House's complaint pleads theories of recovery based on the Equal Protection and Just Compensation clauses of the United States and Indiana Constitutions, section 12132 of the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. § 12101 et seq., and section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, 29 U.S.C. § 794. The defendants have filed a motion to dismiss the complaint in which they assert that it fails to state a claim, that they are entitled to absolute judicial immunity, and that Discovery House has no standing to raise the claims pleaded in the complaint.

Defendants posit that their motion to dismiss Discovery House's complaint must be granted if, accepting the allegations of the complaint as true and drawing all inferences in plaintiff's favor, it would be impossible to prevail under any facts which could be proved consistent with the allegations. Although neither party identifies which subsection of FED.R.CIV.P. 12(b) defendants' motion invokes, this is, of course, the correct standard for defendants' failure-to-state-a-claim argument based on RULE 12(b)(6). See Albiero v. City of Kankakee, 122 F.3d 417, 419 (7th Cir.1997). Standing, however, is a jurisdictional challenge raised via RULE 12(b)(1). Nevertheless, the same standard applies, but only to the extent the allegations of the complaint go unchallenged: unlike RULE 12(b)(6), the court may resolve factual disputes. See Retired Chicago Police Assoc. v. City of Chicago, 76 F.3d 856, 862 (7th Cir.1996). Finally, motions to dismiss raising an immunity defense are analyzed using "a Rule 12(b)(6)-type approach." Khuans v. School District 110, 123 F.3d 1010, 1013 n. 2 (7th Cir.1997); see also Wilson v. Formigoni, 42 F.3d 1060, 1064 (7th Cir.1994).

FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM

The court considers first whether Discovery House's complaint states a claim, for if it does not, it is unnecessary to consider defendants' standing and immunity arguments. See Jennings v. Emry, 910 F.2d 1434, 1435 (7th Cir.1990); Illinois Health Care Assoc. v. Illinois Dept. of Public Health, 879 F.2d 286, 291 n. 9 (7th Cir.1989).

Whether Complaint's Allegations are Sufficient to Implicate Municipal Policy

Defendants' first argument is directed to Discovery House's federal claims. The argument rests on three premises. First, that the federal claims, both constitutional and statutory, require proof of a municipal policy or custom that caused the injury complained of. Second, that of the three recognized ways of proving a policy claim, see Baxter v. Vigo County School Corp., 26 F.3d 728, 735 (7th Cir.1994), Discovery House's complaint relies only on the theory that the BZA is a policy-making authority. Third, that the BZA, when it took the actions complained of, acted in a quasi-judicial capacity.

To simplify analysis, the court accepts these three premises as true. On the strength of these initial premises, defendants deliver their masterstroke: because judges are not municipal policy makers, see, e.g., Woods v. City of Michigan City, Indiana, 940 F.2d 275, 279 (7th Cir.1991), the BZA, acting in a quasi-judicial capacity, also cannot be considered a municipal policy maker. Thus, Discovery House's complaint fails to state a claim because Discovery House has not been harmed (if it has been harmed at all) by an unlawful municipal policy.

Perhaps the shortest way to explain the flaw in defendants' argument is to quote a portion of the Black's Law Dictionary (on which defendants rely to define "quasi-judicial") definition of "quasi:"

As if; almost as it were; analogous to. This term is used in legal phraseology to indicate that one subject resembles another, with which it is compared, in certain characteristics, but that there are intrinsic and material differences between them.

Blacks Law Dictionary 1245 (6th ed.1990). Thus, the fact that the BZA may act in a quasi-judicial capacity does not make it a judicial body for all purposes. The reason judges are not municipal policy makers is because, in most cases, they are officers of the state, not county officials. See Woods, 940 F.2d at 279; see also, Ward v. Morris, 895 F.Supp. 116, 118 (N.D.Miss.1995). The BZA, on the other hand, always remains a municipal actor; that is, its members, even if acting in a quasi-judicial capacity, do not transform into state judicial officers.

Reinforcing this conclusion is defendants' complementary argument that the statutory procedure for appealing the BZA's decisions to an Indiana circuit or superior court, Ind.Code § 36-7-4-1003, proves that the BZA is a judicial actor. In the court's view § 36-7-4-1003 proves the contrary proposition. Under § 36-7-4-1003 an Indiana court has no power to reweigh evidence or substitute its judgment for the BZA; instead it may only find that the BZA acted illegally. See Crooked Creek Conservation and Gun Club, Inc. v. Hamilton County North Board of Zoning Appeals, 677 N.E.2d 544, 547 (Ind.Ct.App.1997). In other words, that the court's function is limited to rectifying illegal decisions made by the BZA only confirms the view that the BZA makes final municipal policy.

In sum, the court rejects defendants' argument that the complaint fails to state a claim because its allegations implicate no municipal policy.

Whether Drug-addicted Individuals Have a Disability Under the ADA and RHA

Discovery House's complaint alleges that defendants discriminated against it because of an animus against drug-addicted individuals. See, e.g., Complaint Par. 24. Defendants argue that the complaint fails to state a claim under the ADA or RHA¹ because drug-addicted individuals are not individuals "with a disability." Section 12210(a) of the ADA provides:

For the purposes of this chapter, the term "individual with a disability" does not include an individual who is currently engaging in the illegal use of drugs, when the covered entity acts on the basis of such use.

42 U.S.C. § 12210(a). Relying on cases such as Shafer v. Preston Memorial Hospital Corp., 107 F.3d 274 (4th Cir.1997), finding no ADA violation when employers terminate employees in rehabilitation on account of recent drug use, defendants argue that the potential clients of Discovery House are not "qualified individuals" due to their recent drug use.

For the purposes of the present motion the court will assume this somewhat doubtful proposition is correct. The proposition is doubtful in the present circumstances due to the language of subsections (b)(2) & (c) of § 12210. As relevant here, subsection (b)(2) provides that "[n]othing in subsection (a) of this section shall be construed to exclude as an individual with a disability an individual who ... is participating in a supervised rehabilitation program and is no longer engaging in such [drug] use." The relevant portion of subsection (c) of § 12210 provides that "[n]otwithstanding subsection (a) of this section ... an individual shall not be denied ... services provided in connection with drug rehabilitation on the basis of the current illegal use of drugs." Whether or not employment-decision cases such as Shafer are correct, these subsections suggest that judicially-divined meaning of the phrase "currently engaging in the illegal use of drugs" in § 12210(a) should perhaps be different in the context of a governmental decision affecting provision of drug rehabilitation services. Whether the meaning of "currently engaging" varies depending on the context need not be decided at present, however.

Even assuming that the phrase "currently engaging in the illegal use of drugs" would have some application in the context of governmental action impacting the availability of drug rehabilitation services, there is an absence of proof as to two factual predicates necessary for § 12210(a) to apply. First, by its express terms, § 12210(a) operates to exclude current drug users from the definition of individuals "with a disability" only when "the covered entity acts on the basis of such use." Reviewing the pleadings² in this case the court can find no admission by defendants that the BZA based its zoning decision on the current drug use of Discovery House's potential clients. Second, even if defendants had made this admission, an additional factual problem arises because, as defendants point out, Discovery House's "potential" clients are "as yet unknown." Defendants' brief at 9. Thus, granting defendants' argument would require the court to assume every one of Discovery House's potential and unknown clients to be a recent enough user of drugs so as to be "currently engaging in the illegal use of drugs." On the...