Mendes v. Beahm
| Decision Date | 25 June 2020 |
| Docket Number | Civil Action No. 5:19-cv-00072 |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Western District of Virginia |
| Parties | NELSON MENDES, Plaintiff, v. DAVID BEAHM, et al., Defendants. |
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Plaintiff Nelson Mendes brought this action under 42 U.S.C § 1983 against defendants David Beahm, Matthew Wendling, Joseph Petty, and Taryn Logan, all in their individual and official capacities (the individual defendants). Mendes has also sued Warren County, Virginia, the Warren County Planning Department, Warren County Building Inspections Department, and the Warren County Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA). Mendes alleges several § 1983 violations stemming from zoning disputes involving Mendes's farming property. (Compl., Dkt. No. 1.)
Defendants move to dismiss Mendes's complaint for failure to state a claim pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). (Def. Mot. Dismiss, Dkt. No. 5.) The court held a hearing on the motion to dismiss. (Dkt. No. 12.) For the reasons stated below, defendants' motion will be granted in part and denied in part.
The individual defendants are employed as follows: David Beahm is the head Building Official for the Warren County Building Inspection Department (Building Department);Matthew Wendling is the Floodplain Manager for the Warren County Planning Department (Planning Department); Joseph Petty was the Zoning Administrator for the Planning Department until August 2019; and Taryn Logan is the Planning Director for the Planning Department. (Compl. ¶¶ 25-28.) Mendes names a variety of governmental entities in his complaint, but at the hearing, Mendes conceded that Warren County is the only suable entity. Also, Mendes sued Warren County and the individual defendants in their individual and official capacities, but Mendes failed to allege any specific "policy or custom" that would make Warren County subject to liability. See Monell v. Dep't of Social Servs., 436 U.S. 658, 694 (1978) (). At the hearing, Mendes represented that he was not alleging Monell liability against Warren County. Thus, Mendes's claims against Warren County and the above-named defendants in their official capacities will be dismissed. The court proceeds to analyze only the claims against the remaining defendants in their individual capacities.
In May 2017, Mendes purchased a waterfront property on the South Fork of the Shenandoah River with plans to open a tree nursery and eventually build a residence. In September 2017, Mendes hired contractors to clear the property of existing trees and other obstructions and erected a greenhouse himself. (Compl. ¶¶ 35-37.) A month later, the Building Department issued a "stop work order" and instructed Mendes to obtain a Land Disturbance Permit before proceeding. (Id. ¶ 38, 42.) When Mendes sought clarification from the Building Department and the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ), a Building Department employee informed him that a neighbor reported seeing Mendes's contractors "remove vegetation along the river and toss it into the river," which prompted the DEQ to visit, inspect, and take pictures of the property. (Id. ¶ 47.) The neighbor later recanted her story andadmitted that she falsely reported Mendes "because she was upset by the clearing of trees near her land." (Id. ¶ 3.) Several months after his conversation with the Building Department, Mendes contacted two DEQ officials seeking a status update. These officials informed Mendes that DEQ's investigation revealed no compliance issues with the property. (Id. ¶¶ 45-46.) However, when Mendes subsequently contacted David Beahm at the Building Department to request the Permit, Beahm accused Mendes of violating several DEQ regulations, including failing to submit a full erosion and sediment control plan since his clearing project "exceeded 10,000 square feet per Warren County regulations." (Id. ¶ 50.) A third DEQ official overruled Beahm's position and confirmed that DEQ would take no further action against Mendes. (Id. ¶ 52.) Beahm eventually acquiesced to DEQ's decision, and Mendes continued with the project from March 2018 to January 2019 without incident. (Id.¶ 53.)
On January 16, 2019, Mendes received a Notice of Violation from the Planning Department's Deputy Zoning Administrator citing Mendes for several Zoning Ordinance violations, including (1) failing to obtain a zoning permit for "any and all" structures on the property, (2) having "multiple accessory structures" on the property, and (3) having part of a six-by-sixteen-foot ramp protruding into the Shenandoah River in violation of Virginia Marine Resource Commission (MRC) regulations. (Id. ¶ 55.) The letter stated that the Planning Department had been conducting county-wide observations of properties along Warren County's Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA) following a record rainfall in 2018. (Id.) Mendes contacted Petty at the Planning Department and expressed concern that Beahm encouraged an investigation into Mendes's property "given their prior history." (Id. ¶ 59.)
On February 8, 2019, several members of the Planning and Building Departments—including Petty and Beahm—visited the property at Mendes's request. Although it wasMendes's understanding that he was exempt from the zoning permit requirement pursuant to a January 21, 2005 Zoning Ordinance Interpretation regarding agricultural properties, Petty instructed Mendes to submit an agricultural exemption zoning application. (Id. ¶ 63-64.) On February 21, 2019, Petty informed Mendes that all structures on the property would need to be inspected for compliance with National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) and Federal Emergency Management Administration (FEMA) standards. (Id. ¶ 67.) On March 13, 2019, Petty advised Mendes to obtain a residential building permit for the deck. (Id. ¶ 69.) Following a March 28, 2019 FEMA site visit, Mendes installed FEMA-compliant flood vents on the property and submitted applications for agricultural exemptions for the deck, greenhouse, and two metal garages. (Id. ¶¶ 72, 77-78.)
On May 1, 2019, Mendes received a "Zoning Determination" from the Planning Department requiring Mendes to obtain residential building permits for all structures within the flood plain area, including the deck, greenhouse, and garages to support his agricultural exemption application. (Id. ¶ 80.) Mendes timely filed a notice of appeal to the BZA. (Id. ¶ 81.)2 At the August 1, 2019 BZA hearing, Mendes presented evidence that the Planning Department "selectively enforced, and otherwise interpreted the Zoning Ordinance against him arbitrarily and capriciously." (Id. ¶ 88.) Mendes also accused Planning Department officials of trespassing on the property because that was "the only way the Planning Department could have known certain facts about the Farm.". (Id. ¶ 87.)
The BZA took the matter under advisement and scheduled a second hearing for September 5, 2019. (Id. ¶ 89.) On August 29, 2019, the Planning Department prepared asupplemental staff report raising two new issues concerning Mendes's compliance with the Zoning Ordinance: "(1) that the property was not used for agricultural purposes because [Mendes] and his family occasionally camped in the garage; and (2) that there were concerns about [a] composting toilet, shower . . . and sink in one of the garages." (Id. ¶ 92.) The Planning Department allegedly referred the second matter to the Virginia Department of Health for review. (Id.)
On the morning of the second BZA hearing, Petty informed Mendes that the Planning Department intended to present a second supplemental memorandum to the BZA conceding that Mendes's legal interpretation of the Zoning Ordinance was correct, but requiring him to pay a ten dollar ($10.00) zoning permit fee for the deck "because it would not otherwise meet the agricultural exemption." (Id. ¶ 95.) Mendes rejected this proposal because it "failed to recognize that Mendes fully complied" with the Zoning Ordinance. (Id. ¶ 96.) Following its second hearing, the BZA overturned the Zoning Administrator's May 1, 2019 Zoning Determination and required Mendes to comply with the Planning Department's recommendation to pay a $10.00 permit fee. (Id. ¶ 103.)
To survive a motion to dismiss, the complaint must "state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face." Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). A claim is facially plausible if the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw a "reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the alleged misconduct." Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678. In determining whether Mendes has satisfied this plausibility standard, the court must accept as true all well-pleaded facts in the complaint and"draw[] all reasonable factual inferences from those facts in [Mendes's] favor," Edwards v. City of Goldsboro, 178 F.3d 231, 244 (4th Cir. 1999), but it need not "accept the legal conclusions drawn from the facts" or "accept as true facts or unwarranted inferences, unreasonable conclusions, or arguments." Giarratano v. Johnson, 521 F.3d 298, 302 (4th Cir. 2008). "Threadbare recitals" of the elements of each cause of action will not suffice. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678. The complaint must allege enough facts from which the court, calling upon "its judicial experience and common sense," id. at 679, can conclude that Mendes is entitled to relief.
Mendes alleges that the defendants (1) violated his due process right to be free from "arbitrary and capricious government action," (2) violated his right to equal protection from "being unjustly singled out," (3) violated the Fourth Amendment by conducting "unlawful and obtrusive governmental searches," and (4)...
To continue reading
Request your trial