Mount St. Scholastica v. City of Atchison, Kansas
| Decision Date | 12 March 2007 |
| Docket Number | No. 06-2208-CM.,06-2208-CM. |
| Citation | 482 F.Supp.2d 1281 |
| Parties | MOUNT ST. SCHOLASTICA, INC., Plaintiff, v. CITY OF ATCHISON, Kansas, Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Kansas |
Heath A. Hawk, Richard W. Miller, Miller Law Firm, P.C., Kansas City, MO, for Plaintiff.
Michael K. Seek, Michelle R. Stewart, Fisher, Patterson, Sayler & Smith, LLP, Overland Park, KS, for Defendant.
Plaintiff Mount St. Scholastica, Inc., brings this case against defendant City of Atchison, Kansas, alleging that by unreasonably denying a demolition permit under the Kansas Historic Preservation Act, defendant violated plaintiff's state and federal constitutional rights. This case is before the court on Defendant's Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings (Doc. 8) and Plaintiffs Cross Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 10). Because the court finds that defendant's actions violated plaintiffs First Amendment rights, the court grants summary judgment for plaintiff in part.
Mount St. Scholastica is a monastic community that owns property in Atchison, Kansas. Part of plaintiffs religious philosophy requires that such property and other holdings be "administer[ed] ... justly so that [plaintiff] will be able to witness publicly to the evangelical poverty each member has promised in her commitment to monastic life." Among plaintiff's property and holdings is the Administration Building.
The Administration Building was built in 1924 and has served multiple purposes over its lengthy history. It has served as classrooms and housed administration programs for the Mount Academy, Junior College, the Mount St. Scholastica College, and the Mount Community Center. As plaintiffs educational efforts changed and relocated, it became difficult for plaintiff to utilize the Administration Building. According to plaintiff, "since 1989, the Benedictine Community at Mount St. Scholastica has pursued trying to find a feasible and prudent use for the Administration Building." It is uncontested that the building has not been used for' a full year since 2001.
On October 18, 2005, plaintiff applied to defendant for a demolition permit for the Administration Building. Because the Administration Building is located within 500 feet of buildings which are listed as historic properties — in fact the Administration Building is physically connected to the St. Cecilia structure — defendant submitted the request for a demolition permit to the State Historic Preservation Officer under Kan. Stat. Ann. 75-2724. The State Historic Preservation Officer responded on November 22, 2005, with a determination that the Administration Building "is a character-defining feature of the environs and therefore its demolition would encroach upon, damage or destroy listed historic properties or their environs." As an alternative to demolition, the State Historic Preservation Officer suggested that plaintiff market the property for redevelopment or mothball the building "until a new use can be found."
Under the Kansas Historic Preservation Act, a governing body may override the recommendation of the State Historic Preservation Officer' if it finds "based on a consideration of all relevant factors, that there is no feasible and prudent alternative to the proposal and that the program all possible planning to minimize harm to [the] historic property." Kan. Stat. Ann. 75-2724(a). Accordingly, on December 5, 2005, plaintiff presented its request for a demolition permit to defendant at a City Commission Meeting. Defendant requested, and plaintiff agreed, that additional time would be useful to research and find a use for the Administration Building. Defendant postponed its decision until a later City Commission Meeting.
On April 3, 2006, defendant held the second City Commission Meeting on this matter. The submitted record indicates that, at this hearing, defendant heard presentations from the Kansas State Historical Society, the Atchison Preservation Alliance, the Foutch Brothers, LLC, as well as plaintiff. The Kansas State Historical Society opposed the demolition and considered it a "clear-cut case." The Atchison Preservation Alliance provided guidelines for mothballing buildings and addressed its costs. Steve Foutch proposed to convert the building into elderly housing. Plaintiff rejected the housing proposal because it refused to "sell land in the middle of their property," and rejected the mothballing proposal because it would "say that the Community is standing still" and "would have a great detrimental effect on recruiting new members." Defendant then opened the meeting to public comments. At least seventeen individuals offered their opinions. Numerous individuals addressed plaintiffs unique circumstances. Three of the city commissioners found that a feasible and prudent alternative existed. Two members of the city commission' found that a feasible and prudent' alternative did not exist. Based on this finding, defendant denied plaintiffs request for a demolition permit.
Plaintiff requested that defendant reconsider this determination. While this request was on an agenda for a later City Commission Meeting, due to parliamentary procedures, defendant did not discuss the request for reconsideration. Plaintiff then filed the present case in state court on May 2, 2006. Plaintiffs complaint contained five counts:
Count I[,] Appeal pursuant to K.S.A. 60-2101(d)[;] Count II, Declaratory Judgment pursuant to K.S.A. 60-1701 et seq. [;] Count III[,] Civil Action for Deprivation of Rights pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (First and Fourteenth Amendments)[;] Count IV[,] Civil Action for Deprivation of Rights pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments)[; and] Count V[,] Mandamus.
Defendant removed the case to this court on May 22, 2006.
While typically a motion for judgment on the pleadings is governed by the same standards as a Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted — which would permit dismissal only if it appears beyond a doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of the theory of recovery that would entitle him or her to relief — Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(c) provides that "[i]f, on a motion for judgment on the pleadings, matters outside the pleadings are presented to and not excluded by the court, the motion shall be treated as one for summary judgment and disposed of as provided in Rule 56, and all parties shall be given reasonable opportunity to present all material made pertinent to such a motion by Rule 56." This notice may either be actual or constructive. See Robinson v. Medevac Midamerica, Inc., No. 06-4042-SAC, 2006 WL 2726794, at *2 (D.Kan. Sept. 22, 2006) (citing David v. City and County of Denver, 101 F.3d 1344, 1352 (10th Cir.1996)). Moreover, "when both parties submit `materials beyond the pleadings in support of or opposing a motion to dismiss, the prior action on the part of the parties puts them on notice that the judge may treat the motion as a Rule 56 motion.'" Caldwell v. W. Atlas Ina, 871 F.Supp. 1392, 1394-95 (D.Kan.1994) (quoting Wheeler v. Hurdman, 825 F.2d 257, 260 (10th Cir.1987)).
Defendant submitted a Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings (Doc. 8). Plaintiffs response incorporated a Cross Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 10) without providing any separate discussion based on the different judgment standards between a motion for judgment on the pleadings and a motion for summary judgment. Similarly, defendant combined its reply to the motion for judgment on the pleadings and its response to the cross motion for summary judgment into a single filing with no discussion of judgment standards. Both parties submitted materials beyond the pleadings. The court considers both motions under the standards of summary judgment.
Summary judgment is appropriate if the moving party demonstrates that there is "no genuine issue as to any material fact" and that it is "entitled to a judgment as a matter of law." Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c). In applying this standard, the court views the evidence and all reasonable inferences therefrom in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party. Adler v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 144 F.3d 664, 670 (10th Cir. 1998) (citing Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 587, 106 S.Ct. 1348, 89 L.Ed.2d 538 (1986)).
The Kansas Historic Preservation Act provides that any person aggrieved by a determination by a governing body may appeal under Kan. Stat. Ann. § 60-2101. Kan. Stat. Ann. § 75-2724(b). Plaintiff alleges that the defendant acted unreasonably, arbitrarily, capriciously, and in a manner inconsistent with Kan. Stat. Ann. § 75-2724.1 Plaintiff requests damages and expenses. Defendant argues that because its decision considered the relevant factors, plaintiffs claim must fail.
[4-6] When reviewing a governing body's determination, a court is restricted to considering whether: "(1) the tribunal acted fraudulently, arbitrarily, or capriciously, (2) the administrative order is substantially supported by the evidence, and (3) the tribunal's action was within the scope of its authority." Reiter v. City of Beloit, 263 Kan. 74, 947 P.2d 425, 434 (1997). As part of considering whether the decision was arbitrary or supported by the evidence, the court examines whether and how the governing body considered the relevant factors. Id. at 438 (). A factor is relevant if it is "logically connected to the ultimate decision of whether there is a feasible and prudent alternative to the proposal and whether...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Friends of Bethany Place v. City of Topeka
...it's an economic determination, part of it is a technical determination." The city attorney then described Mt. St. Scholastica v. City of Atchison, 482 F.Supp.2d 1281 (D.Kan.2007), before concluding that the City "probably faces some potential legal action at least whichever way you Council......
-
Ben J v. City Of Salina
...to exploit a property interest that [it] heretofore had believed was available for development.’ ” Mount St. Scholastica v. City of Atchison, Kansas, 482 F.Supp.2d 1281, 1298 (D.Kan.2007) Penn Central, 438 U.S. at 130, 98 S.Ct. 2646). Explaining the rationale of Penn Central, this court has......
-
Friends of Bethany Place, Inc. v. City of Topeka
...with how federal courts have conducted their review under similar statutory provisions. See Mount St. Scholastica, Inc. v. City of Atchison, 482 F.Supp.2d 1281, 1290 (D.Kan.2007); Lawrence Preservation Alliance, Inc. v. Allen Realty, Inc., 16 Kan.App.2d 93, 100–01, 819 P.2d 138 (1991); see ......
-
Stinemetz v. Kan. Health Policy Auth.
...case-by-case determinations.” Axson–Flynn v. Johnson, 356 F.3d 1277, 1298 (10th Cir.2004). See also Mount St. Scholastica, Inc. v. City of Atchison, Kansas, 482 F.Supp.2d 1281 (D.Kan.2007) (because City had discretion to make case-by-case determinations concerning building demolition, City'......
-
Stealth Takings: Inverse Condemnation
...(no vested right in continuity of zoning so as to preclude zoning amendment). [10] Mount St. Scholastica Inc. v. City of Atchison, 482 F. Supp. 2d 1281, 1296 (D. Kan. 2007). [11] Lingle v. Chevron U.S.A. Inc., 544 U.S. 528, 537, 125 S. Ct. 2074, 161 L. Ed. 2d 876 (2005). [12] United States ......