Drayton v. Mcintosh Cnty.

• Decision Date: 17 June 2016
• Docket Number: CV 216-053
• Parties: SARAH FRANCES DRAYTON, et al., Plaintiffs, v. MCINTOSH COUNTY, GEORGIA, et al., Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Southern District of Georgia

SARAH FRANCES DRAYTON, et al., Plaintiffs, v. MCINTOSH COUNTY, GEORGIA, et al., Defendants.

CV 216-053

United States District Court for the Southern District of Georgia Brunswick Division

June 17, 2016

ORDER

This case comes before the Court on two fully briefed motions to dismiss: The first has been filed by Defendants Mcintosh County, Georgia (the "County"); Mcintosh County Sheriff Stephen Jessup ("Sheriff Jessup") in his official capacity; and the Mcintosh County Board of Tax Assessors (the "Board of Tax Assessors") (collectively, the "County Defendants"). Dkt. No. 46. The second Motion has been filed by Defendants the State of Georgia (the "State"), Governor Nathan Deal ("Governor Deal") in his official capacity, the Georgia Department of Natural Resources (the "DNR"), Commissioner of the DNR Mark Williams ("Commissioner Williams") in his official capacity, and Sapelo Island Heritage Authority ("SIHA") (collectively, the "State Defendants"). Dkt. No. 48. Additionally, United States of America ("USA") has intervened, submitting a Statement of Interest (dkt. no. 58) and a Response to the State Defendants' Motion to Dismiss (dkt. no. 57).

As set forth below, some but certainly not all of Plaintiffs' claims are subject to dismissal based on immunity. For the reasons that follow, the County Defendants' Motion to Dismiss (dkt. no. 46) is GRANTED in part and REMAINS PENDING in part, and the State Defendants' Motion to Dismiss (dkt. no. 48) is GRANTED in part, DENIED in part, and REMAINS PENDING in part. The Motions (dkt. nos. 46, 48) are GRANTED to the extent that they request that one or more of the following claims be dismissed on the basis of immunity:

• Claims against Sheriff Jessup under the Fair Housing Act ("FHA"), 42 U.S.C. § 3604(a) ("Section 3604(a)"), for damages;

• Claims against Sheriff Jessup under the FHA, 42 U.S.C. § 3604(b) ("Section 3604(b)"), for damages;

• Claims against Sheriff Jessup under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981, 1983 ("Section 1981" and "Section 1983") for damages;

• Claims against Sheriff Jessup under 42 U.S.C. § 1982 ("Section 1982") and Section 1983 for damages;• Claims against Sheriff Jessup under the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, U.S. Const. amend. XIV, for damages;

• Claims against the Board of Tax Assessors under Section 3604(a) of the FHA for damages;

• Claims against the Board of Tax Assessors under Section 3604(b) of the FHA for damages;

• Claims against the Board of Tax Assessors under the FHA, 42 U.S.C. § 3605 ("Section 3605"), for damages;

• Claims against the Board of Tax Assessors under Section 1981 and Section 1983 for damages;

• Claims against the Board of Tax Assessors under Section 1982 and Section 1983 for damages;

• Claims against the Board of Tax Assessors under the Fourteenth Amendment for damages;

• Claims against SIHA under Section 3604(a) of the FHA for damages, declaratory relief, and injunctive relief;

• Claims against SIHA under Section 1981 and Section 1983 for damages, declaratory relief, and injunctive relief;

• Claims against SIHA under Section 1982 and Section 1983 for damages, declaratory relief, and injunctive relief; and

• Claims against SIHA under the Fourteenth Amendment for damages, declaratory relief, and injunctive relief.

The State Defendants' Motion (dkt. no. 48) is DENIED as to its request for a dismissal of Plaintiffs' claims against the State and the DNR for damages, declaratory relief, and injunctive relief under Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 12132, 12142, 12146-48 ("Title II"). While the State Defendants' Motion (dkt. no. 48) for the dismissal of Plaintiffs' claims against the State for damages, declaratory relief, and injunctive relief under under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000d ("Title VI"), is not granted on immunity grounds, it nevertheless REMAINS PENDING insofar as it seeks a dismissal of these claims for failure to state a claim.

Additionally, the Motions (dkt. nos. 46, 48) REMAIN PENDING for resolution by the Court to the extent that they seek a dismissal of one or more of the following claims on grounds other than immunity:

• Claims against Sheriff Jessup under Section 3604(a) of the FHA for declaratory and injunctive relief;

• Claims against Sheriff Jessup under Section 3604(b) of the FHA for declaratory and injunctive relief;

• Claims against Sheriff Jessup under Section 1981 and Section 1983 for declaratory and injunctive relief;

• Claims against Sheriff Jessup under Section 1982 and Section 1983 for declaratory and injunctive relief;• Claims against Sheriff Jessup under the Fourteenth Amendment for declaratory and injunctive relief;

• Claims against the Board of Tax Assessors under Section 3604(a) of the FHA for declaratory and injunctive relief;

• Claims against the Board of Tax Assessors under Section 3604(b) of the FHA for declaratory and injunctive relief;

• Claims against the Board of Tax Assessors under Section 3605 of the FHA for declaratory and injunctive relief;

• Claims against the Board of Tax Assessors under Section 1981 and Section 1983 for declaratory and injunctive relief;

• Claims against the Board of Tax Assessors under Section 1982 and Section 1983 for declaratory and injunctive relief;

• Claims against the Board of Tax Assessors under the Fourteenth Amendment for declaratory and injunctive relief;

• Claims against the County under Section 3604(a) of the FHA for damages, declaratory relief, and injunctive relief;

• Claims against the County under Section 3604(b) of the FHA for damages, declaratory relief, and injunctive relief;

• Claims against the County under Section 3605 of the FHA for damages, declaratory relief, and injunctive relief;• Claims against the County under Section 1981 and Section 1983 for damages, declaratory relief, and injunctive relief;

• Claims against the County under Section 1982 and Section 1983 for damages, declaratory relief, and injunctive relief;

• Claims against the County under the Fourteenth Amendment for damages, declaratory relief, and injunctive relief;

• Claims against the County under Title VI for damages, declaratory relief, and injunctive relief;

• Claims against Governor Deal under Section 3604(a) of the FHA for injunctive relief;

• Claims against Governor Deal under Section 3604(b) of the FHA for injunctive relief;

• Claims against Governor Deal under the FHA, 42 U.S.C. § 3604(f)(1) ("Section 3604(f)(1)"), for injunctive relief;

• Claims against Governor Deal under the FHA, 42 U.S.C. § 3604(f)(2) ("Section 3604(f)(2)"), for injunctive relief;

• Claims against Governor Deal under Section 1981 and Section 1983 for injunctive relief;

• Claims against Governor Deal under Section 1982 and Section 1983 for injunctive relief;• Claims against Governor Deal under the Fourteenth Amendment for injunctive relief;

• Claims against Commissioner Williams under Section 3604(a) of the FHA for injunctive relief;

• Claims against Commissioner Williams under Section 3604(b) of the FHA for injunctive relief;

• Claims against Commissioner Williams under Section 3604(f)(1) of the FHA for injunctive relief;

• Claims against Commissioner Williams under Section 3604(f)(2) of the FHA for injunctive relief;

• Claims against Commissioner Williams under Section 1981 and Section 1983 for injunctive relief;

• Claims against Commissioner Williams under Section 1982 and Section 1983 for injunctive relief; and

• Claims against Commissioner Williams under the Fourteenth Amendment for injunctive relief.

BACKGROUND

Plaintiffs are members of the African American Gullah-Geechee community who own land or reside on or visit Sapelo Island in Mcintosh County, Georgia. Dkt. No. 29 ("Pl.s' Am. Compl."), ¶¶ 19-138. Several of the Plaintiffs are individuals with disabilities. See id. at ¶¶ 22, 30, 34, 38, 61, 63, 75, 81, 95, 111, 130.

The State has a 97% ownership interest in Sapelo Island, and the DNR generally manages the land. Id. at ¶ 213. The State legislature created SIHA for the purpose of preserving the cultural and historic values of certain areas of Sapelo Island. Id. at ¶ 147. According to Plaintiffs, the State has received federal financial funding in the form of Community Development Block Grant ("CDBG") funds and HOME funds, a portion of which it has allocated to the County. Id. at ¶¶ 140, 142, 444. Sheriff Jessup is responsible for determining and implementing law enforcement policies in Mcintosh County, including allocating budgetary resources provided by the County for the provision of policing services, and the Board of Tax Assessors determines the amount of property tax that the County collects from its residents. Id. at ¶¶ 158, 161.

Plaintiffs filed suit against the State Defendants and the County Defendants on December 9, 2015. Dkt. No. 1. Plaintiffs allege that the State Defendants and the County Defendants have discriminated against them in the provision of housing and housing-related services, as well as other governmental programs and services, on the basis of race, color, national origin, and disability. See generally Pl.s' Am. Compl. Plaintiffs assert, in part, that the State has allocated the federal financial assistance in a discriminatory manner by giving it to the County, which used the funds to benefit White residents on themainland, when the State "could have and should have ensured that [the] County used some of the CDBG and HOME funding to promote housing stability and economic development on Sapelo Island." Id. at ¶¶ 353-66. The Amended Complaint also alleges, in relevant part, that certain Plaintiffs having physical disabilities "regularly use a ferry operated by the State and the DNR for the purposes of . . . commuting to and from work or school, shopping, accessing health[]care services, or visiting friends and family." Id. at ¶¶ 454-45. According to Plaintiffs, the ferry, as well as the ferry docks and parking lots on both the mainland and Sapelo Island, are not readily accessible and usable by individuals with disabilities. Id. at ¶¶...