Winston v. City of Syracuse
| Decision Date | 11 April 2018 |
| Docket Number | August Term, 2017,No. 17-1017-cv,17-1017-cv |
| Citation | 887 F.3d 553 |
| Parties | Jacqueline WINSTON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CITY OF SYRACUSE, Deborah Somers, in her official capacity as the Commissioner of Water, Defendants-Appellees. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Second Circuit |
Joshua Cotter, Legal Services of Central New York, Syracuse, NY, for Plaintiff-Appellant.
Amanda Harrington, Assistant Corporation Counsel (Mary D'Agostino, Assistant Corporation Counsel, on the brief ), for Kristen E. Smith, Corporation Counsel, Syracuse, NY, for Defendants-Appellees.
Before: Parker, Lynch, and Droney, Circuit Judges
Plaintiff Jacqueline Winston, a tenant in a multi-family building in the City of Syracuse, New York, filed this putative class action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 in the United States District Court for the Northern District of New York in February 2016. She alleged that the City and its Commissioner of Water Deborah Somers (collectively, the "City") violated the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment when (1) the City shut off her water service after her landlord failed to pay the water bill for the building, and when (2) the City denied her the opportunity to open a water account in her own name. Winston sought declaratory and injunctive relief against the City.
The City filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings, contending that Winston had not pleaded a constitutional violation. In response, Winston argued that the City's policies were not rationally related to a legitimate government interest and therefore deprived Winston of her rights to due process and equal protection.
The district court (McAvoy, J. ) granted the City's motion and entered judgment for the City. Winston v. City of Syracuse , 205 F.Supp.3d 238 (N.D.N.Y. 2016). The district court concluded that the City has a rational basis for those water account and water service policies. As to the City's policy regarding tenants opening water accounts, the district court concluded that Winston could not show that the City lacked a rational basis to treat landlords and tenants differently. The court reached the same conclusion regarding the City's policy of shutting off water when a landlord is delinquent in paying the water bill. The court reasoned that the City could rationally terminate water service to a landlord's property because doing so would further the City's goal of collecting unpaid water bills.
We affirm in part and reverse in part the district court's judgment. The City has offered sufficient reasons for its policy of refusing to allow tenants to open their own water accounts, and thus satisfies the rational basis test. However, we also conclude that the City's practice of terminating water service to tenants when a landlord fails to pay the water bill is not rationally related to a legitimate government interest. Accordingly, we remand to the district court for further proceedings.
We draw the facts from the allegations in the complaint, and assume those facts are true for this appeal granting a motion under Rule 12(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. See L-7 Designs, Inc. v. Old Navy, LLC. , 647 F.3d 419, 422 (2d Cir. 2011).
Winston is a forty-year-old mother of two children who lives in a unit of a multi-family home in Syracuse, New York. In addition to her two children, she lives with her husband, her sister, and her sister's nine-year-old son. Winston is a long-time tenant of her current home, having lived there since 2005. During the years Winston has lived at the property, the landlord has been responsible for paying the water bill for the building. At the time that she filed this action, Winston was current in paying her monthly rent of $600. The City is the sole supplier of water service within the City through its Department of Water.
The City's ordinances governing water service do not permit tenants such as Winston to open their own water accounts. Rather, the City provides water service only after "the property owner ... makes application for a service to said property." Syracuse, N.Y., Code of Ordinances, Part M, § 16-11 (emphasis added). Once service is established, the City may shut off the water for a failure to pay the water bill. Id. § 16-53 (). Prior to terminating water service, the City's ordinances require the City to provide a written notice regarding the shutoff to the landlord and occupants of the property. Id. § 16-108(b).
On January 19, 2016, Winston received such a notice on the door to her home, which "inform[ed] her that her water would be shut off if the water bill of $472.97 was not paid in full within thirty days." App. 11. After receiving the notice, Winston informed her landlord's maintenance person, who assured her that the landlord would pay the bill.
The notices that the City provides when contemplating a water shutoff—including the one given Winston—inform the occupants of the reasons for terminating water service, as well as the landlord and occupants' "right to request an impartial hearing" before an independent City hearing officer. App. 33; see also Syracuse, N.Y., Code of Ordinances, Part M, § 16-108(d) (). This hearing officer has "discretion to make decisions on a case by case basis," and "shall issue a written decision" that is "binding on the commissioner of water." Syracuse, N.Y., Code of Ordinances, Part M, § 16-108(d). The City may not terminate water service until the hearing is completed and the hearing officer renders a decision. Id.
Once the City terminates water service, the City's municipal code strictly limits the circumstances under which the Department of Water may restore water service. First, the Department of Water may only restore water service "when the event which is the basis for the shut off no longer exists" and a $140 restoration of service fee is paid. Id. § 16-108(e)-(f). Second, the Code provides that "an occupant may pay the [landlord's] outstanding water bill ... and any associated fees, including ... the restoration of service fee," but notes that "[i]t shall then be the responsibility of the occupant to take any necessary action to recoup the payment from the owner of the property." Id. § 16-108(e).
Winston did not avail herself of the hearing procedure, and alleges that she relied on the maintenance person's assurances that the landlord would pay the water bill. However, her landlord did not pay the bill, and on February 23, 2016, the City shut off the water service to the building that included Winston's unit. According to Winston's complaint, she immediately contacted the maintenance person, who again stated that the landlord would address the overdue bill. The following day, the family remained without water, and Winston called the City's water department to pay the landlord's outstanding water bill. In her complaint, she alleges that a City employee told her that the City would not be able to restore water service even if she paid the bill because Winston was not the property owner.1
On February 25, 2016—Winston and her family's third day without water service—she filed this class action lawsuit alleging that the City's policies violate the Due Process Clause and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment both facially and as applied to her.2 In her complaint, she noted that she and her family had faced many difficulties during their days without water service. These difficulties included "buy[ing] gallons of water from the store just ... [to] cook, drink, brush ... teeth, and wash up." App. 11. In addition, she alleges that the lack of water service posed special problems for Winston's nine-year old autistic daughter.
After Winston filed her lawsuit, the City answered her complaint and then moved for judgment on the pleadings. The district court granted the motion as to Winston's facial challenges, determining that Winston had failed to state a claim because the City's policies were rationally related to legitimate government purposes. The court also denied the motion as to Winston's as applied challenge and denied Winston's motion for class certification. Following the district court decision, Winston agreed to dismiss her as applied challenge. This appeal followed.
On appeal, Winston argues that the district court erred when it determined that she had not stated a claim for facial violations of the Due Process Clause and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Specifically, she first contends that no rational reasons exist to distinguish between landlords and tenants for purposes of establishing water accounts. Second, she asserts that the City cannot lawfully distinguish between the tenants of delinquent and non-delinquent landlords when providing water service. We address each of these points below. However, we first resolve one preliminary issue that this appeal presents regarding standing to pursue this action.3
The City contends that Winston lacks standing to challenge the water shutoff policy under the Due Process Clause because a plaintiff "must submit to the challenged policy" to have standing to contest the legality of a government policy.
Prayze FM v. FCC , 214 F.3d 245, 251 (2d Cir. 2000) (internal quotation marks omitted). According to the City, Winston failed to meet that requirement when she did not follow the City's procedures for requesting a pre-termination hearing.
An exception to that standing doctrine exists "where a plaintiff makes a substantial showing that [submission to the policy] would have been futile." Jackson-Bey v. Hanslmaier , 115 F.3d 1091, 1096 (2d Cir. 1997). We agree with Winston that challenging termination of her water service would have been futile. While...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- Martell v. City of St. Albans
- People ex rel. Johnson v. Superintendent, Adirondack Corr. Facility
- Harr, LLC v. Town of Northfield
-
Wright v. U. PO, Parole Officer
... ... possesses subject matter jurisdiction over the case. See, ... e.g., Winston v. City of Syracuse, 887 F.3d 553, 558 ... n.3 (2d Cir. 2018). Because mootness deprives a ... ...