Jackson v. City of Auburn, Ala., Civ.A. 97-T-1207-E.

• Decision Date: 24 February 1999
• Docket Number: No. Civ.A. 97-T-1207-E.,Civ.A. 97-T-1207-E.
• Parties: Lindburgh JACKSON, et al., Plaintiffs, v. The CITY OF AUBURN, ALABAMA, Defendant.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Middle District of Alabama

41 F.Supp.2d 1300

Lindburgh JACKSON, et al., Plaintiffs, v. The CITY OF AUBURN, ALABAMA, Defendant.

No. Civ.A. 97-T-1207-E.

United States District Court, M.D. Alabama, Eastern Division.

February 24, 1999.

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

Kyle T. Smith, Gordon, Silberman, Wiggins & Childs, Birmingham, AL, plaintiffs.

Randall C. Morgan, Hill, Hill, Carter, Franco, Cole & Black, Montgomery, AL, for defendant.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

MYRON H. THOMPSON, District Judge.

Plaintiffs Lindburgh Jackson, Lieutenant Morris, and Nolan Torbert bring this lawsuit claiming that the City of Auburn, Alabama, discriminated against them on the basis of race in denying their application for a conditional-use permit to construct duplexes. The plaintiffs charge that the City violated their rights under the equal-protection clause of the fourteenth amendment to the United States Constitution, as enforced through 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983, and the Fair Housing Act of 1968, as amended, 42 U.S.C.A. §§ 3601 through 3631.¹ The plaintiffs have invoked the jurisdiction of the court pursuant to 28 U.S.C.A. §§ 1331 (federal question) and 1343 (civil rights) and 42 U.S.C.A. § 3613(a)(1)(A) (Fair Housing Act). This lawsuit is now before the court on the City's motion for summary judgment and the plaintiffs' motion to amend the complaint. For reasons to follow, the court will grant the motion for summary judgment and deny the motion to amend the complaint.

I. SUMMARY-JUDGMENT STANDARD

Rule 56(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides that summary judgment is appropriate where "there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and ... the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law." Once the party seeking summary judgment has informed the court of the basis for its motion, the burden shifts to the non-moving party to demonstrate why summary judgment would be inappropriate. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323, 106 S.Ct. 2548, 2553, 91 L.Ed.2d 265 (1986); see also Fitzpatrick v. City of Atlanta, 2 F.3d 1112, 1115-17 (11th Cir.1993) (discussing how the responsibilities on the movant and the non-movant vary depending on whether the legal issues, as to which the facts in question pertain, are ones on which the movant or non-movant bears the burden of proof at trial). In making its determination, the court must view all evidence and any factual inferences in the light most favorable to the non-moving party. Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 587, 106 S.Ct. 1348, 1356, 89 L.Ed.2d 538 (1986).

"The mere existence of a scintilla of evidence in support of the plaintiff's position will be insufficient [to withstand summary judgment]; there must be evidence on which the jury could reasonably find for the plaintiff." Earley v. Champion Int'l Corp., 907 F.2d 1077, 1080 (11th Cir.1990) (quoting Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 252, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 2512, 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986)).

II. BACKGROUND

The facts, as garnered from the affidavits, deposition testimony, and other evidence submitted by the parties but viewed in the light most favorable to the plaintiffs, are as follows. Jackson, Morris, and Torbert are African-Americans and the sole stockholders in J.T.M. Enterprises, Inc. J.T.M. Enterprises owns a 1.97-acre parcel of property in a cul-de-sac at the north end of White Street in Auburn, Alabama. The property, which the court will hereinafter refer to as the White Street property, abuts single-family-home subdivisions on three sides and undeveloped land on the fourth side. The residents of one of the adjoining subdivisions, located on Cary Drive, are predominantly white. The property also abuts a single-family-home subdivision, located on Donahue Street, populated primarily by African-Americans.² There is no evidence of the racial makeup of White Street's residents. There are apartments and duplexes several blocks, or approximately a mile, from the White Street property.³

Jackson is a civic activist and advocate for the rights of African-Americans in Auburn.⁴ Prior to the events at issue in this case, he had spoken before the City Council on repeated occasions about subjects including the establishment of a polling station in an African-American neighborhood and the creation of a park honoring Dr. Martin Luther King,⁵ and had served on the City Council from 1976 to 1980.⁶ Jackson is also a landlord who rents an apartment, a house, and two offices in Auburn.⁷ He contends that African-American landlords generally have African-American tenants in Auburn.⁸ However, he notes that he has had two or three white tenants in the ten years he has been renting the apartment.⁹

Prior to the events at issue in this case, the plaintiffs had no experience in developing property and had never presented an application to the Planning Commission.¹⁰ J.T.M. Enterprises owns only the White Street property and was formed in order to purchase that property.¹¹

J.T.M. Enterprises purchased the White Street property on May 2, 1996, at an auction at the Lee County Courthouse. According to the plaintiffs, several neighbors of the White Street property were at the auction.¹² All of the neighbors in attendance were white.¹³ During the auction, Torbert and Morris heard some of the neighbors state that they would put their homes up for sale if the plaintiffs were to obtain the White Street property.¹⁴

When the plaintiffs purchased it, the White Street property was on land zoned as a Redevelopment District, that is, as "RDD."¹⁵ Under the Auburn zoning ordinance, which was first instituted in 1984, duplexes were a "permitted" use in RDD zoning when the plaintiffs purchased the property; in other words, developers needed no special permit from the City in order to undertake such development.¹⁶ In July 1996, two months after the plaintiffs purchased the property, the Auburn zoning ordinance was amended. The amendment changed duplexes from a "permitted" to a "conditional" use of RDD-zoned land, thereby requiring that developers obtain a conditional-use permit from the City Council in order to build multi-family housing on land so zoned.¹⁷ Since the amendment, developers applying to build structures classified as conditional uses have had to submit two documents to the City. First, they have to submit a plat, which is a detailed drawing and map describing the planned development, for preliminary and final approval by the Auburn Planning Commission. Plat approval appears to turn on providing certain information and may be granted conditioned upon future full compliance. Developers must also submit an application for conditional-use approval to the Planning Commission, which recommends that the application be approved or rejected. The City Council thereafter automatically reviews conditional-use applications and approves or rejects them. Conditional-use approval turns on a determination that the proposed building will not harm the community and complies with the goals of the zoning ordinance.

Prior to submitting the plaintiffs' application to the City, Jackson canvassed residents on Donahue Street, which runs through the primarily African-American, single-family-home neighborhood adjoining the White Street property, to ask if anyone opposed his building duplexes on White Street. He heard no opposition.¹⁸ He also consulted with a City employee for help with the application and assistance in complying with subdivision regulations.¹⁹

On December 2, 1996, the plaintiffs submitted an application for preliminary plat approval and recommendation of conditional-use approval to the Auburn Planning Commission. The application detailed the plaintiffs' planned development of a total of seven duplexes and triplexes on the White Street property and, according to Jackson, was in full compliance with the applicable ordinances.²⁰ The City Engineer and the City Planning Director found numerous engineering and plat deficiencies in the application.²¹

The plaintiffs' application was first considered by the Auburn Planning Commission at its January 9, 1997, meeting. At that meeting, Jackson spoke in favor of the proposal, and several other citizens spoke in opposition to the proposal. Some of these opponents were the same neighbors of the property who, at the auction where the plaintiffs had purchased the property, had expressed their intention to move if the plaintiffs purchased the property.²² The neighbors' asserted reason for opposing the plaintiffs' application was that the proposed duplex development would not be compatible with the surrounding neighborhood.²³ Clarence Morgan, an African-American, also spoke in opposition to the plaintiffs' application. Morgan stated that he opposed the duplexes because they would cause increased traffic flow and because he felt that the area should continue to have only single-family homes.²⁴ On a motion by Al Davis, an African-American Planning Commission member, to recommend denial of the application, the Commission rejected the plaintiffs' application by a vote of seven to zero.²⁵ Davis stated that "the intent was that this area be preserved in a residential fashion."²⁶

On January 21, 1997, the plaintiffs' application was reviewed by the Auburn City Council. Again there was opposition from members of the public, including some of the same neighbors who had spoken against the proposal at the Planning Commission meeting.²⁷ The City Council denied the application,²⁸ explaining that the proposed development was not compatible with the surrounding neighborhood.²⁹ The Council also issued a written resolution denying conditional-use approval. In the resolution, the Council took notice of the Planning Commission's recommendation to deny the request "because it is not in compliance with all City ordinances and regulations and will have adverse impacts on the community" and stated that the Council had held a public hearing and found that "the request was inconsistent with the standards set forth for...