Stancuna v. Town of Wallingford

• Decision Date: 15 May 2007
• Docket Number: No. 3:05cv920 (JBA).,3:05cv920 (JBA).
• Citation: 487 F.Supp.2d 15
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of Connecticut
• Parties: Vernon STANCUNA, Plaintiff, v. TOWN OF WALLINGFORD and William W. Dickinson, Jr., Defendants.

487 F.Supp.2d 15

Vernon STANCUNA, Plaintiff, v.TOWN OF WALLINGFORD and William W. Dickinson, Jr., Defendants.

No. 3:05cv920 (JBA).

United States District Court, D. Connecticut.

May 15, 2007.

John R. Williams, New Haven, CT, for Plaintiff.

Beatrice S. Jordan, Thomas R. Gerarde, Howd & Ludorf, Hartford, CT, for Defendants.

RULING ON DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT[DOC. # 35]

ARTERTON, District Judge.

PlaintiffVernon Stancuna initiated this suit pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against the Town of Wallingford(the "Town") and its mayor William W. Dickinson, Jr., as the alleged highest policy-setting official of the Town, alleging violation of his right to equal protection under the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution in the form of selective enforcement of the Town's zoning regulations and Town Code provisions concerning storage of inoperable and/or unlicensed vehicles and operating an automotive repair business on his residential property at 85 West Dayton Hill Road in Wallingford.Compl.[Doc. # 1].Plaintiff claims there are other similarly situated individuals who engaged in violations of the zoning regulations and/or Town Code and who did not experience the warnings, threats, harassment, and enforcement proceedings to which he claims to have been subjected.Specifically, plaintiff's Complaint alleges that "defendant Dickinson caused the Planning and Zoning Department of the Town of Wallingford to initiate zoning enforcement proceedings against [him] for keeping and repairing motor vehicles at his residence," and that "as a proximate result of [Dickinson's] actions ..., the plaintiff was subjected to warnings, threats, and harassment from the agents of the defendantTown of Wallingford because of keeping motor vehicles on his property and/or fixing his cars on his property and/or keeping a boat on his property."Compl.¶¶ 7-8.¹Plaintiff contends that "[a]t the same time as the foregoing activities were taking place, defendant Dickinson resided immediately adjacent to other residents of the Town of Wallingford who kept and repaired unlicensed motor vehicles and one or more boats in front of their residences in full view of Dickinson [and that][n]either defendant has taken any action respecting the[se] residents and conditions ... although fully aware of such facts."Id.¶¶ 10-11.Thus, plaintiff claims that "defendants have intentionally inflicted upon [him] treatment substantially different from that afforded other town residents similarly situated to him."Id.¶ 11.

Defendants move for summary judgment arguing: (1)plaintiff's claim against Mayor Dickinson fails because there is no evidence supporting an inference that Dickinson had any personal involvement in the incidents alleged; (2) even assuming personal involvement, Dickinson is entitled to qualified immunity; (3)plaintiff's claim fails because he is unable to demonstrate any similarly situated comparators who were treated differently than plaintiff; and (4)plaintiff's claim against the Town fails because there is no evidence of a municipal policy or custom in existence which caused the alleged deprivation of plaintiff's rights.See Def. Mot. [Doc. # 35].For the reasons that follow, defendants' Motion will be granted.

I.Factual Background

The following facts are undisputed, unless otherwise noted.Plaintiff's property at 85 West Dayton Hill Road in Wallingford, Connecticut (the "Property"), seeStancuna Dep.at 12-13, is in an RU-80 zone, which is a residential zone under the Town's Zoning Regulations.SeeDeVoeAff. ¶ 6(Wallingford Zoning Enforcement Officer).Plaintiff also owns Stancuna Import-Export, L.L.C. which is involved in, inter alia, the import and export of personal vehicles and collectible cars, with a current business address also of 85 West Dayton Hill Road.Stancuna Dep.at 19-20, 28.Stancuna concedes that at least "sometimes" his mechanic would perform minor repair and/or maintenance work on vehicles at the Property.Id. at 29-30.

The Town's Zoning Regulations, which are promulgated and enforced by the Town's Planning and Zoning Department, dictate that "[m]otor vehicle repair garages" require approval of a "Special Permit" and may only be operated in commercial districts, seeZoningReg. ¶ 4.6.D.8, although conducting minor repairs on registered vehicles for personal use by a property owner in a residential zone is not a violation of the Zoning Regulations, seeDeVoeAff. ¶ 5.Enforcement Officer DeVoe states that enforcement of zoning regulations within the Town is initiated and handled on a anonymous complaint-based system because the Town does not have sufficient personnel or resources to con duct regular inspections of every property within the Town, seeDeVoeAff. ¶¶ 24-25, and attests that "[e]ach complaint of a suspected zoning violation is investigated by the Planning and Zoning Department, and enforcement action is taken if warranted,"id.¶ 26.Plaintiff disputes these contentions by claiming that officials can and do observe properties as they drive around Town.SeePl.L.R. 56 Stmt. ¶¶ 31-32.

The.Town Code, adopted by the Town Council and enforced by the Wallingford Police Department, provides that "it shall be unlawful to deposit, park, place, permit to remain, store or have any abandoned, inoperable, or unregistered motor vehicle or part thereof on any property; unless the same shall be authorized in conjunction with a lawful business thereon or unless the same shall be in an enclosed building, which motor vehicle or part thereof remains unmoved for 30 days after [written notice to the owner of the property]."Town Code ¶ 214-1."The Wallingford Planning and Zoning Department does not handle citations for the presence and/or keeping of unregistered motor vehicles on property within the Town.Such citations are solely handled by the Wallingford Police Department in accordance with § 214-1 et seq. of the Town's Code.Complaints regarding the presence of unregistered motor vehicles on property within the Town are immediately referred to the Police Department for handling."DeVoeAff. ¶ 28.As with the zoning regulations, defendants contend that enforcement of Town Code § 214-1 is initiated and handled through a complaint-based system because the Police Department does not have sufficient personnel to conduct inspections of every property in the Town.SeeHaberskiAff. ¶ 6(Police Department Officer).Plaintiff disputes the exclusivity of this system, again claiming that "[t]he mere act of driving in the Town is sufficient for town officials to observe the violations ...."Pl.L.R. 56 Stmt. ¶ 77.²Haberski represents that "[e]ach complaint of a violation of Town Code § 214-1 et seq, is investigated by the Police Department, and enforcement action is taken if warranted,"HaberskiAff. ¶ 7;plaintiff questions the interpretation of "warranted,"Pl.L.R. 56 Stmt. ¶ 78.According to Haberski "[w]hen a complaint is received as to the suspected presence of unregistered motor vehicles on property within the Town, the property is inspected, and the property owner is contacted regarding the violation.During such contact, Code§ 214-1 et seq. and corresponding violation is explained to the property owner,""[t]he property owner is also provided with a letter which details the prohibition set forth in § 214-1 et seq., and is further advised that they must bring the property into compliance, i.e. remove the unregistered vehicles, within 30 days or an infraction ticket will be issued."HaberskiAff. ¶¶ 8-9."The status of the property owner's compliance is reviewed by way of reinspection upon lapse of the 30 day time period, at which time an infraction ticket is issued if the property owner has failed to bring the property into compliance" and "[i]n the event that the property owner remain[s] in non-compliance after the initial notice and an infraction ticket is issued, the property is re-inspected subsequent thereto to ascertain compliance.An additional infraction ticket is issued if the non-compliance persists."Id.¶¶ 10-11.

On March 23, 2004, during "routine patrol,"Wallingford Police Department OfficerJason Haberski observed four vehicles appearing to be unregistered and/or inoperable on the Property.SeeHaberskiAff. ¶ 13;3/24/04 Case Report.Therefore, Haberski mailed a certified letter to plaintiff explaining Town Code § 214-1.HaberskiAff. ¶ 14;3/24/04 Case Report.Subsequently, on May 7, 2004, the Town's Planning and Zoning Department received a complaint that plaintiff was housing four to five unregistered motor vehicles on the Property, seeDeVoeAff. ¶ 8, and the Department referred the complaint to the Police Department, which handles investigation and enforcement of violations of the Town Code, id.¶ 9.On June 15, 2004, Haberski re-inspected the Property, observed three unregistered motor vehicles, and thus issued plaintiff an infraction ticket for the Town Code violation.SeeHaberskiAff. ¶¶ 15-16;6/16/04 Case Report.Then, in July 2004, another complaint was made to the Planning and Zoning Department that plaintiff was conducting automotive repair on the Property and a letter was thus sent to plaintiff advising him that such activity violated the Zoning Regulations.See7/19/04 Letter.On August 2, 2004, Haberski again re-inspected the Property for compliance, observed four unregistered vehicles there, and thus issued plaintiff a second infraction ticket.HaberskiAff. ¶¶ 17-18;8/2/04 Case Report.On December 23, 2004, the Planning and Zoning Department received another complaint that plaintiff was repairing vehicles at the Property in violation of zoning regulations and Wallingford Zoning Enforcement Officer DeVoe then conducted a drive-by inspection of the Property and observed several unregistered vehicles there, one of which was in the process of being repaired.³DeVorAff. ¶¶ 10-11.DeVoe thus sent another certified letter to plaintiff again advising...