From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Wheeler v. City of Pleasant Grove

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.[fn*] Unit B
Dec 18, 1981
664 F.2d 99 (5th Cir. 1981)

Summary

holding that an ordinance banning the construction of apartment complexes bore no substantial relationship to legitimate concerns for health, safety, welfare, or the general well-being of the community

Summary of this case from Mont Belvieu Square, Ltd. v. City of Mont Belvieu

Opinion

No. 80-7306.

December 18, 1981.

Corretti, Newsom Rogers, Donald H. Brockway, Jr., Douglas Corretti, Birmingham, Ala., for plaintiffs-appellants cross-appellees.

Cooper, Mitch Crawford, Thomas N. Crawford, Jr., Birmingham, Ala., for defendants-appellees cross-appellants.

Appeals from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama.

Before TJOFLAT, HATCHETT and THOMAS A. CLARK, Circuit Judges.



This action was brought under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983, 1985, 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201- 2202, and the fourteenth amendment of the United States Constitution. The plaintiffs sought declaratory, injunctive, and equitable relief as well as money damages from the City of Pleasant Grove and certain of its officers. The district court granted injunctive relief and attorney's fees to the plaintiffs, but denied any monetary damages. We affirm the district court's opinion, except that part dealing with the plaintiff's claim for damages. We reverse the court below on that issue and remand for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.

The plaintiffs were granted a permit to build an apartment complex in Pleasant Grove, Alabama on August 8, 1978. This permit was issued under city Ordinance no. 177. The apartments were to be built on a parcel that had been recently purchased by the plaintiffs and had been zoned in classification B-2. In reliance on the permit, the plaintiffs initiated preparatory work.

The news of the construction of the apartment complex caused an uproar in Pleasant Grove. A referendum was held, which showed an overwhelming resistance to the proposed apartment complex. The upshot of this referendum was the passage of a new city Ordinance, no. 216, which forbade the construction of new apartments. The city then prohibited the plaintiffs from proceeding with the construction.

The district court held that the implementation of city Ordinance no. 216 was arbitrary and capricious, and was specifically intended to prevent the plaintiffs from exercising their building permit. As applied to the plaintiffs, Ordinance no. 216 was found to be a confiscatory measure and violative of the plaintiffs' fourteenth amendment rights to due process. Further, the ordinance bore no substantial relationship to legitimate concerns for health, safety, welfare, or the general well-being of the community. We agree.

This court perceives the enactment of Ordinance no. 216 to be a bald attempt to revoke an already authorized building permit. Findings by the trial court indicate that this action was a confiscatory measure. Under Maher v. City of New Orleans, 516 F.2d 1051, 1065, rehearing denied, 521 F.2d 815 (5th Cir. 1975), cert. denied, 426 U.S. 905, 96 S.Ct. 2225, 48 L.Ed.2d 830, if a regulatory undertaking is confiscatory in nature, it is a taking. Further, the city's purpose in enacting the measure was not rational. A developer has its right to be free of arbitrary or irrational zoning standards. Arlington Heights v. Metropolitan Housing Development, 429 U.S. 252, 263, 97 S.Ct. 555, 562, 50 L.Ed.2d 772 (1977). Additionally, if a zoning ordinance is "clearly arbitrary and unreasonable, having no substantial relation to the public health, safety, morals, or general welfare," it must be struck down, Euclid v. Ambler Realty Co., 272, U.S. 365, 395, 47 S.Ct. 114, 121, 71 L.Ed. 303 (1926). Given the findings of the court below, the application of city Ordinance no. 216 to the plaintiffs was unconstitutional.

The defendant claims that under the zoning ordinance in effect at the time the permit was issued (city Ordinance no. 177), the permit to construct the apartments should not have been granted. The ordinance in question was unclear on its face as to whether apartment complexes could be built in areas zoned as B-2. The court below considered the evidence on the issue and ruled that the proper interpretation of Ordinance no. 177 allowed the use of the tract in question for apartment complexes. We see no reason to disturb this finding under the clearly erroneous rule. Our review of the ordinance leads us to the same interpretation with respect to the permitted use of the tract for apartments in light of the evidence presented. Therefore, the plaintiffs had a legitimate permit under Ordinance no. 177.

The only remaining issue is that of damages. The district court held that the defendants in this action were shielded by the defense of a qualified immunity as set forth in Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232, 94 S.Ct. 1683, 40 L.Ed.2d 90 (1974). This conclusion of the district court was reached without the benefit of the recently decided case of Owen v. City of Independence, 445 U.S. 622, 100 S.Ct. 1368, 63 L.Ed.2d 673 (1980). In Owen, which came down at approximately the same time as the district court opinion, the Supreme Court distinguished the Scheuer case. It specifically stated that municipalities have no immunity in § 1983 actions, and that good faith does not serve as a defense to liability. We therefore reverse the district court's conclusion of law on this issue and remand for a determination of damages sustained by the plaintiffs.

445 U.S. at 638, 651, 100 S.Ct. at 1409, 1415 (1980). However, it should be noted that under Wood v. Strickland, 420 U.S. 308, 95 S.Ct. 992, 43 L.Ed.2d 214 (1975) and Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232, 94 S.Ct. 1683, 40 L.Ed.2d 90 (1974) it appears that the city officials do have a "good faith" defense in § 1983 actions.

AFFIRMED IN PART, IN PART REVERSED AND REMANDED.


Summaries of

Wheeler v. City of Pleasant Grove

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.[fn*] Unit B
Dec 18, 1981
664 F.2d 99 (5th Cir. 1981)

holding that an ordinance banning the construction of apartment complexes bore no substantial relationship to legitimate concerns for health, safety, welfare, or the general well-being of the community

Summary of this case from Mont Belvieu Square, Ltd. v. City of Mont Belvieu

finding substantive due process violation after a city enacted a permit-revoking ordinance based solely on public outcry

Summary of this case from Greenbriar Village v. City of Mountain Brook

finding substantive due process violation after a city enacted a permit-revoking ordinance based solely on public outcry

Summary of this case from Greenbriar Village, L.L.C. v. City of Mountain Brook

reversing the district court's award of qualified immunity to a municipality as an erroneous "conclusion of law" and remanding for consideration in light of Owen

Summary of this case from Barna v. Bd. of Sch. Dirs. of the Panther Valley Sch. Dist.

In Wheeler the city passed a restrictive ordinance by popular referendum because of opposition to a particular apartment development, after the developer had already obtained valid building permits and zoning for the development.

Summary of this case from Nelson v. City of Selma

In Wheeler v. City of Pleasant Grove, 664 F.2d 99 (5th Cir. 1981) Pleasant Grove granted a property owner a permit to build an apartment complex.

Summary of this case from Jackson Court Condominiums v. New Orleans

In Wheeler the plaintiffs obtained a building permit for an apartment complex, which was a permitted use under the relevant zoning ordinance.

Summary of this case from Hynes v. Pasco County

In Wheeler, the plaintiffs, in August 1978, were granted a permit to build an apartment complex on land the plaintiffs had recently purchased in Pleasant Grove, Alabama.

Summary of this case from Pirolo v. City of Clearwater

In Wheeler v. City of Pleasant Grove, 664 F.2d 99, 100 (5th Cir. Unit B 1981), the plaintiff apartment developers were initially granted a permit to build an apartment complex.

Summary of this case from Pittsfield Dev., LLC v. City of Chi.

In Wheeler, the enactment of the ordinance revoking the plaintiffs' permit was apparently based solely on public outcry directed at the plaintiffs' project.

Summary of this case from Greenbriar Village v. City of Mountain Brook

In Wheeler, the plaintiffs were granted a permit to build an apartment complex under the city ordinance in effect at that time.

Summary of this case from Greenbriar Village v. City of Mountain Brook

In Wheeler, the enactment of the ordinance revoking the plaintiffs' permit was apparently based solely on public outcry directed at the plaintiffs' project.

Summary of this case from Greenbriar Village, L.L.C. v. City of Mountain Brook

In Wheeler, the plaintiffs were granted a permit to build an apartment complex under the city ordinance in effect at that time.

Summary of this case from Greenbriar Village, L.L.C. v. City of Mountain Brook

In Wheeler, the plaintiff developers had already been granted a validly authorized building permit and construction had commenced.

Summary of this case from Abraham v. City of Mandeville

In Wheeler, a case remarkably similar to this on the facts, the court established a method for determining the damages sustained by temporary governmental interference with a landowner's beneficial use of property. It held that the loss takes the form of an injury to the property's potential for producing income or an expected profit.

Summary of this case from Town of Orangetown v. Magee
Case details for

Wheeler v. City of Pleasant Grove

Case Details

Full title:JOSEPH WHEELER, ET AL., PLAINTIFFS-APPELLANTS CROSS APPELLEES, v. CITY OF…

Court:United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.[fn*] Unit B

Date published: Dec 18, 1981

Citations

664 F.2d 99 (5th Cir. 1981)

Citing Cases

Greenbriar Village v. City of Mountain Brook

The plaintiff contends that this case is most similar to Wheeler v. City of Pleasant Grove, 664 F.2d 99 (5th…

Greenbriar Village, L.L.C. v. City of Mountain Brook

The question remains, however, whether the City's termination of that permit under these circumstances with…