Fountain v. Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit Authority

• Decision Date: 18 June 1982
• Docket Number: No. 81-7077,81-7077
• Citation: 678 F.2d 1038
• Parties: T. J. FOUNTAIN, Jr., individually and doing business as Fountain Oil Company, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. METROPOLITAN ATLANTA RAPID TRANSIT AUTHORITY, Defendant-Appellee.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Eleventh Circuit

Page 1038

678 F.2d 1038

T. J. FOUNTAIN, Jr., individually and doing business as Fountain Oil Company, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. METROPOLITAN ATLANTA RAPID TRANSIT AUTHORITY, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 81-7077.

United States Court of Appeals Eleventh Circuit.

June 18, 1982.

George P. Dillard, Decatur, Ga., for plaintiff-appellant.

Kutak, Rock & Huie, Charles N. Pursley, Jr., Robert A. Boas, Atlanta, Ga., for defendant-appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia.

Before VANCE, KRAVITCH and CLARK, Circuit Judges.

VANCE, Circuit Judge:

Appellant T. J. Fountain, Jr. appeals from the district court order dismissing his complaint. The district court dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction two counts of appellant's complaint alleging denial of his federal constitutional rights. Additionally, the court dismissed a third count of the complaint alleging denial of a federal statutory right for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted and declined to exercise jurisdiction over several pendent state claims. We affirm the dismissal of Fountain's statutory claim but we reverse the district court's decision as to subject matter jurisdiction over the constitutional claims. At the same time, we believe that the district court should abstain from hearing this case pending the resolution of a parallel claim in state court. Accordingly, we vacate in part the judgment of the district court and remand.

I.

Appellant owns a gasoline service station located at the northeastern corner of the intersection of Howard Avenue and East Lake Drive in Decatur, Georgia. Howard Avenue runs from east to west and is parallel to a nearby railroad track; East Lake Drive runs from north to south, crossing both Howard Avenue and the railroad track at street level. The Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit Authority (MARTA), a state created agency, ¹ proposed to extend the east line of its subway system through Decatur, running between Howard Avenue and the railroad track, slightly to the north of appellant's service station. MARTA also planned to build a subway station in the vicinity of East Lake Drive.

It became apparent that MARTA's trains would not be able to stop at the intersection of East Lake Drive and MARTA's east line due to problems with the grade of the land there. Consequently, during construction of the east line MARTA built the station a short distance to the west of East Lake Drive. In doing so, MARTA also relocated East Lake Drive to the west, away from appellant's service station, and permanently closed the old East Lake Drive north of the service station. According to the complaint, MARTA blocked off both Howard Avenue and East Lake Drive throughout the period of construction and prevented all vehicular access to appellant's service station. Appellant also alleges that after the completion of the new East Lake Drive and the nearby portion of the east line, the old East Lake Drive remained closed to through traffic, partially impairing access to the service station.

MARTA lowered the new East Lake Drive to run beneath Howard Avenue and the subway and railroad tracks, necessitating a change in the area's surface water drainage patterns. Specifically, MARTA determined that it had to construct a dam and a new drainage retention pond in the area. MARTA selected a pond location that included the northern portion of appellant's property.

MARTA does not have any statutory power of eminent domain. See 1965 Ga.Laws 2243, 2266 (uncodified). ² To implement any of its plans, therefore, MARTA must rely on the county or municipality involved to exercise its powers of eminent domain on behalf of MARTA. See Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit Authority v. Datry, 235 Ga. 568, 572-73, 220 S.E.2d 905, 909 (1975). Accordingly, in January 1976 DeKalb County brought a condemnation action in state court on behalf of MARTA seeking a permanent easement to construct and maintain the dam and drainage retention pond on appellant's property, as well as a temporary construction easement. MARTA did not deem it necessary to seek condemnation of appellant's property for the alleged impairment of access to the service station during construction of the subway line or thereafter. Appellant counterclaimed in the condemnation suit, however, for damages resulting from the street closings. After extensive legal proceedings, the state court awarded $7,020 in damages for the easements, but dismissed the counterclaim. ³ The state court determined that the counterclaim was independent of the condemnation action and could only be heard in a separate lawsuit.

While the condemnation case was pending on a second appeal from final judgment, appellant instituted the present action in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia. Appellant's complaint was essentially one for inverse condemnation. Specifically, the complaint alleged that the street closings amounted to a taking of appellant's property for a public use without just compensation, in violation of the fifth and fourteenth amendments. ⁴ The complaint further alleged that MARTA's actions deprived him of due process and equal protection of the laws, in violation of the fourteenth amendment. ⁵ Appellant's final federal claim alleged a denial of his rights under the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970. ⁶ Additionally, appellant raised pendent state claims, alleging parallel violations of the state constitution and common law trespass. Appellant sought compensatory damages, punitive damages, and attorneys fees.

MARTA moved to dismiss the suit for lack of subject matter jurisdiction or for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. The district court dismissed the suit and this appeal followed. While this appeal was pending, appellant filed an inverse condemnation action in state court asserting the same claims raised in this federal lawsuit. As of the date of oral argument in this case, pleadings had been filed in the state case, but the lawsuit had not yet gone to trial.

II.

The district court dismissed the just compensation claim for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The court held that an inverse condemnation action could not lie against MARTA because that state agency did not have the power of eminent domain, and that the just compensation claim against MARTA was therefore frivolous.

It is by now axiomatic that the federal courts are tribunals of limited jurisdiction. See, e.g., Owen Equipment & Erection Co. v. Kroger, 437 U.S. 365, 374, 98 S.Ct. 2396, 2403, 57 L.Ed.2d 274 (1978); Aldinger v. Howard, 427 U.S. 1, 15, 96 S.Ct. 2413, 2420, 49 L.Ed.2d 276 (1976); Maxwell v. First National Bank, 638 F.2d 32, 35 (5th Cir. 1981). Both the Constitution and various statutes limit the subject matter of cases that may be heard by the federal courts, and the federal courts should be scrupulous in confining their use of judicial power to the precise limits set by the Constitution and Congress. Victory Carriers, Inc. v. Law, 404 U.S. 202, 212, 92 S.Ct. 418, 425, 30 L.Ed.2d 383 (1971). Consequently, it is incumbent upon the party seeking to avail himself of federal court jurisdiction to demonstrate the existence of jurisdiction. See Pettinelli v. Danzig, 644 F.2d 1160, 1162 (5th Cir. 1981).

In this case, appellant has asserted a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. ⁷ Specifically, he claims that MARTA, a state agency acting under color of state law, deprived him of the beneficial use of his property for a public purpose during the construction of the east line and thereafter without providing just compensation. He therefore contends that MARTA deprived him of his constitutional rights while acting under color of state law. We hold that this claim meets the threshold jurisdictional requirements of 28 U.S.C. § 1343(3) because it is well established that "where the complaint, as here, is so drawn as to seek recovery directly under the Constitution or laws of the United States, the federal court ... must entertain the suit." Bell v. Hood, 327 U.S. 678, 681-82, 66 S.Ct. 773, 775-76, 90 L.Ed. 939 (1946). See also Hagans v. Lavine, 415 U.S. 528, 538-39, 94 S.Ct. 1372, 1379-80, 39 L.Ed.2d 577 (1974); Silva v. Vowell, 621 F.2d 640, 645-46 (5th Cir. 1980), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 1125, 101 S.Ct. 941 (1981); Southpark Square Ltd. v. City of Jackson, 565 F.2d 338, 341 (5th Cir. 1977), cert. denied, 436 U.S. 946, 98 S.Ct. 2849, 56 L.Ed.2d 787 (1978).

There are two exceptions to the general rule of Bell v. Hood. Even if a complaint alleges injury to federal rights, the courts should not entertain the lawsuit "where the alleged claim under the Constitution or federal statutes clearly appears to be immaterial and made solely for the purpose of obtaining jurisdiction or where such a claim is wholly insubstantial and frivolous." Bell v. Hood, 327 U.S. at 682-83, 66 S.Ct. at 776; accord, Wohlfahrt v. Memorial Medical Center, 658 F.2d 416, 417 (5th Cir. 1981).

MARTA argues that appellant's claim under the just compensation clause is immaterial to the underlying dispute. MARTA contends that this suit is really an inverse condemnation action under state law and that the federal issues raised are merely "lurking in the background." See Johnston v. Byrd, 354 F.2d 982, 984 (5th Cir. 1965). This argument is without merit, for appellant has flatly alleged that an unconstitutional taking of his property has occurred. Whatever rights appellant may have under state law, it is obvious that the federal Constitution protects him from official takings of property for public use without just compensation. See Webb's Fabulous Pharmacies, Inc. v. Beckwith, 449 U.S. 155, 160, 101 S.Ct. 446, 450, 66 L.Ed.2d 358 (1980) (just compensation clause is incorporated into the fourteenth amendment). The constitutional claim in this case is "not merely a background issue but instead constitute(s) not only the gist...