Euge v. Trantina
| Decision Date | 29 January 1969 |
| Docket Number | No. 68 C 478(1).,68 C 478(1). |
| Citation | 298 F. Supp. 873 |
| Parties | Harvey F. EUGE, Plaintiff, v. William TRANTINA, Director of Dept. of Safety, City of St. Louis, Mo.; Kenneth O. Brown, Building Commissioner of City of St. Louis, Mo.; Alfonso J. Cervantes, Mayor of the City of St. Louis, Mo.; City of St. Louis, Missouri, a Municipal Corp.; Richard Thomas d/b/a Richard Thomas Wrecking Co.; and Harold J. Howard d/b/a Howard Wrecking Co., Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Missouri |
Harvey F. Euge pro se.
Robert C. McNicholas, St. Louis, Mo., for defendants Trantina, Brown, Cervantes and the City of St. Louis, Mo.
Stanley Schechter, St. Louis, Mo., for defendant Thomas, d/b/ Richard Thomas Wrecking Co.
W. D. Shavers, St. Louis, Mo., for defendant Howard, d/b/a Howard Wrecking Co.
All of the defendants named herein have filed motions to dismiss this cause for a variety of reasons: (1) Lack of diversity of citizenship; (2) failure to join as party plaintiffs certain property owners whose presence would defeat diversity; (3) that plaintiff, pro se, is engaging in the unauthorized practice of law; (4) lack of requisite jurisdictional amount; (5) failure to exhaust the appropriate administrative remedies; (6) failure to provide the court with an appropriate reason to exercise its judicial discretion under section 2201; (7) immunity of the defendant, City of St. Louis, from tort damages; (8) that plaintiff is not entitled to punitive damages; (9) plaintiff's violation of Rule 8(a); and (10) plaintiff's alleged unclean hands in that his original verified complaint and his amended verified complain contain conflicting statements.
To place these alleged insufficiencies into prospective a short statement of the substance of this suit is appropriate. Basically, the complainant, Harvey F. Euge, pro se, filed this suit on verified complaint with verified amendment, seeking a variety of prohibitory and mandatory injunctions and damages, both compensatory and punitive against the named defendants. His complaint arises out of certain "condemnation" actions taken under the authority of section 2126.0 et. seq. of the Revised Ordinances of the City of St. Louis. This section provides a procedure whereby structures which do not comply with the Building Code of the City of St. Louis can be removed. Complainant also seeks a declaration that the section is unconstitutional. According to the allegations of the complaint, the City pursuant to the above noted ordinance, removed and demolished certain structures at 1127 Dolman Street and 1219 North Market Street, and further is in the process of securing the removal of property at 2328 Whittemore Place.
It must first be stated clearly that the statute complained of is constitutional on its face. It is perfectly clear that in the interests of the general welfare, and the safety, and the health of its residents, a state and a subdivision thereof can regulate through the use of building codes and provide for their enforcement. Art. XIII section 15 (e) of the Charter of the City of St. Louis delegates this power to a division of the department of public safety. A similar ordinance withstood attack in Baker v. Mueller, 222 F.2d 180 (7th Cir. 1955). The questioned ordinance provides for notice to the owner (as indicated by the deed in the St. Louis Recorder's Office) with adequate provisions for appeal and a hearing with full review, and then provides for further appeal under section 536.100-536.140 RSMo 1959, The Missouri Administrative Review Act. Any of the appeals taken under the provisions of the ordinance stay the proceedings automatically. Section 2127.5 Revised Ordinances.
The court takes judicial notice of the fact that on several prior...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Sullivan v. City of Augusta, No. CIV.04-032-B-W.
... ... The exhaustion doctrine, though mostly applied to state and federal legislation, is applicable to municipal ordinances. See, e.g., Euge v. Trantina, 298 F.Supp. 873 (D.C.Mo.1969). However, where the attack on the statute or regulation is purely constitutional, as it is here, the ... ...
-
McGuire v. State of Iowa
... ... N. A. A. C. P., 360 U.S. 167, 169, 79 S.Ct. 1025, 3 L.Ed.2d 1152 (1959); Whitner v. Davis, 410 F.2d 24, 28 (9th Cir. 1969); See also, Euge v. Trantina, 298 F.Supp. 873 (E.D.Mo.1969), aff'd (on other grounds) 422 F.2d 1070 (8th Cir. 1970). In view of the fact that the doctrine is ... ...
-
Grissom v. Branch & Associates, Inc.
... ... 1968) cert. denied 393 U.S. 1051, 89 S.Ct. 692, 21 L.Ed.2d 693 (1969); Willis v. Reddin, 418 F.2d 702 (9th Cir. 1969); Eisen v. Eastman, supra; Euge v. Trantina, 422 F.2d 1070 (8th Cir. 1970) aff'g 298 F.Supp. 873 (E.D.Mo.1969); Carter v. Chief of Police, 437 F.2d 413 (3rd Cir. 1970); Canty v ... ...
- Euge v. Trantina