R Bend Estates Ii, LLC v. St. John the Baptist Parish

Decision Date02 August 2016
Docket NumberCIVIL ACTION NO. 15-4951 SECTION: "E"(1)
PartiesR BEND ESTATES II, LLC, ET AL., Plaintiffs v. ST. JOHN THE BAPTIST PARISH, ET AL., Defendants
CourtU.S. District Court — Eastern District of Louisiana
ORDER AND REASONS

The Court considers sua sponte whether it has subject-matter jurisdiction over the Plaintiffs' claims.1 The Court finds it does not have subject-matter jurisdiction over Plaintiffs' takings claims and procedural due process claims as they are not ripe. As a result, those claims are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. The Court has jurisdiction, however, over Plaintiffs' substantive due process and equal protection claims.2

FACTUAL & PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

On October 3, 2015, Plaintiffs, R Bend Estates II, LLC ("R Bend"), Pierre Gaudin, and John Treme, filed this federal civil action against St. John the Baptist Parish and the St. John the Baptist Parish Council. According to the Plaintiffs, the Defendants have, on more than one occasion, arbitrarily and capriciously refused to issue to them appropriate zoning permits, which has prevented Plaintiffs from developing property they own or control in St. John the Baptist Parish. The Plaintiffs allege violations of (1) the TakingsClause of the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution and Article 1, Section 4, of the Louisiana Constitution; and (2) the due process and equal protection guarantees in both the United States Constitution and the Louisiana Constitution.3

This matter involves a local zoning dispute that has not been fully litigated at the state level. The Fifth Circuit and the courts within it generally recognize that takings claims are not ripe in federal court until "(1) the relevant governmental unit has reached a final decision as to what will be done with the property and (2) the plaintiff has sought compensation through whatever adequate procedures the state provides."4 Likewise, due process and equal protection claims are unripe in federal court if the claims rest solely on rights afforded by the Takings Clause and they are brought in conjunction with an unripe takings claim.5 To address these concerns, on July 12, 2016, the Court ordered Plaintiffs to file a brief in support of the Court's subject-matter jurisdiction over this action. The Court also permitted Defendants to file a brief challenging the Court's subject-matter jurisdiction.

LAW AND ANALYSIS
I. TAKINGS CLAIMS

As stated above, it is well accepted in the Fifth Circuit that a takings a claim is not ripe in federal court until "(1) the relevant governmental unit has reached a final decision as to what will be done with the property and (2) the plaintiff has sought compensation through whatever adequate procedures the state provides."6 In cases in which no actualtaking has occurred, "Louisiana law recognizes an inverse condemnation action as a means of seeking just compensation."7 In this case, Plaintiffs concede their property has not been taken but argue they have been denied special-use permits such that they are unable to develop their property. Plaintiffs also concede they "have not availed themselves [of] state court proceedings for compensation in an inverse condemnation action."8 As a result, Plaintiffs' claims under the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution and Article 1, Section 4, of the Louisiana Constitution for failing to issue special-use permits, and thereby denying Plaintiffs the ability to use and develop their property, are not ripe for consideration in federal court and, for that reason, are dismissed without prejudice.9

II. PROCEDURAL V. SUBSTANTIVE DUE PROCESS

Plaintiffs do not distinguish between their procedural due process claims and their substantive due process claims, but this distinction is of critical importance. Procedural due process claims, like takings claims, are not ripe in federal court until state remedies have been exhausted.10 True substantive due process claims need not be exhausted at the state level to be ripe for consideration in federal court, but substantive due process claims that are in reality subsumed by unripe takings claims are themselves unripe. A substantive due process claim is subsumed by an unripe takings claim when the substantive dueprocess claim rests solely on rights afforded by the Takings Clause and is brought in conjunction with an unripe takings claim.11

Plaintiffs have failed to distinguish their procedural due process claims from their substantive due process claims. The Court will do so based on the allegations of the Complaint.

III. PROCEDURAL DUE PROCESS CLAIMS

Procedural due process requires "the government to follow appropriate procedures when its agents decide to deprive any person life, liberty, or property."12 "Due process requires notice and an opportunity for a hearing before a government entity can deprive a person of property rights."13 In this case, Plaintiffs have alleged that St. John the Baptist Parish (1) refused to accept applications for special-use permits, which denied them the ability to use their property as they saw fit, and (2) passed an ex post facto law, without a hearing or opportunity to be heard, specifically to interfere with Plaintiffs' property rights. Accordingly, Plaintiffs have clearly alleged that their procedural due process rights were violated. The Court must determine whether Plaintiffs' procedural due process claims are ripe for consideration in federal court.

In Bowlby v. City of Aberdeen, Mississippi, the Fifth Circuit explained that a "procedural due process claim that is brought concurrently with a takings claim . . . should be analyzed . . . according to 'general ripeness principles.'"14 More specifically, the Bowlby court explained the Fifth Circuit "has distinguished procedural due process claims that involve allegations of deprivations 'ancillary to' or 'arising from' a takings claim fromthose whose main thrust is not a claim for a taking."15 "The ripeness of the former depends on the ripeness of the 'ancillary' takings claim, while the ripeness of the latter is a separate matter from the ripeness of any attendant takings claim."16

A plain reading of the Complaint reveals that Plaintiffs' procedural due process claims allege deprivations "ancillary to" or "arising from" their takings claims. For example, the Plaintiffs allege in their Complaint that St. John the Baptist Parish has repeatedly refused to issue them permits and/or zoning variances, which has denied Plaintiffs the ability to develop their property for a legally permissible use, which, in turn, amounts to a taking of Plaintiffs' property. Whether Plaintiffs' procedural due process rights were violated in connection with the permitting process is intertwined with whether Plaintiffs' property was "taken without just compensation."17 As the Southern District of Mississippi held in Willis v. City of Hattiesburg, "[t]he gravamen of Plaintiff's procedural due process claim is the taking, and this procedural due process claim is not separately cognizable from Plaintiffs' charge that they were denied full compensation for the alleged taking."18 "[W]here the injury that resulted from an alleged procedural due process violation is merely a taking without just compensation, we cannot know whether the plaintiff suffered any injury until the takings claim has been adjudicated."19 In this case, the Court finds Plaintiffs' procedural due process claims are "ancillary to" and "arise from" their takings claims.

Furthermore, courts in the Fifth Circuit have held, "[w]ith respect to procedural due process, while as a general rule an aggrieved person need not exhaust state remedies before filing suit in federal court to vindicate a state deprivation of constitutional rights, an exception to this rule applies when the alleged constitutional deprivation is the denial of procedural due process."20 If a plaintiff does not avail himself or herself of the available state procedures, the plaintiff is foreclosed from pursuing his or her procedural due process claim in federal court.21 The Court concluded above that the Plaintiffs failed to pursue an inverse condemnation action in state court, which the Plaintiffs do not dispute. This serves as an additional justification for the Court's conclusion that Plaintiffs' procedural due process claims are not ripe.

The Court finds that Plaintiffs' procedural due process claims—i.e., that St. John the Baptist Parish refused to accept their applications for special-use permits and passed an ex post facto law without an opportunity to be heard—are not ripe and are dismissed without prejudice.

IV. SUBSTANTIVE DUE PROCESS & EQUAL PROTECTION CLAIMS

"An unripe takings claim does not necessarily subsume substantive due process and equal protection claims alleging deprivations in property."22 "The Fifth Circuit has rejected a blanket rule that the Takings Clause subsumes any substantive due process claims."23

The Middle District of Louisiana in Bienville Quarters, LLC v. East Feliciana Parish Police Jury aptly summarized the inquiry that courts conduct to determine if a plaintiff's substantive due process and equal protection claims are subsumed by an unripe takings claim:

[I]n cases such as this, where plaintiff brings substantive due process claims and equal protection claims in connection with a takings claim, the Court looks to determine the extent to which the plaintiff's substantive due process and equal protection claims rest on protections that are also afforded by the Takings Clause. If the substantive due process and equal protection claims rest solely on rights afforded to them by the Takings Clause and are brought in conjunction with an unripe takings claim, then such claims are consequently unripe. If, however, such claims assert rights not afforded to them by the Takings Clause, or, in other words, if they find their protection rooted in, for example, the Due Process Clause, then they are unaffected by the determination that a joined
...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT