Bowlby v. City of Aberdeen, Miss.
2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 9717
| 5th Cir. | 2012Background
- Bowlby sought to operate a Sno Cone hut at the busy intersection of Highway 45 and Meridian Street in Aberdeen, MS.
- The Aberdeen Planning and Zoning Board initially granted permits for Bowlby’s operation.
- Bowlby opened the business around July 29, 2009.
- On September 14, 2009 the Board revoked the permits without notifying Bowlby of the review.
- The Board's written reasons cited misrepresentation of location, safety concerns, zoning for larger businesses, an eyesore toilet, and overall unattractive appearance.
- Bowlby sued in federal court alleging Fifth Amendment takings, due process, and equal protection violations; the district court dismissed all claims under Rule 12(b)(6), citing Williamson County ripeness for the takings claim and deeming other claims unripe.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Procedural due process right to predeprivation hearing | Bowlby had a property interest in the permits; predeprivation process was required | No protected property interest; no final decision; no predeprivation process | Bowlby has a property interest and predeprivation process was required |
| Ripeness of Bowlby’s procedural due process claim | Ripeness not dependent on Williamson County finality; ancillary takings not required | Ripeness governed by Williamson County final-decision rule | Ripe under general ripeness principles; not barred by Williamson County |
| Equal protection claim viability | Bowlby was treated differently due to race; proportional discrimination | Allegation insufficient to show discriminatory intent or similarly situated individuals | Dismissed for failure to plead plausible racial discrimination or similarly situated comparator |
| Exhaustion of state remedies for §1983 claim | Exhaustion not required to bring procedural due process claim | Not addressed separately in decision here | Not necessary to exhaust state remedies for §1983 due process claim (claim viable) |
Key Cases Cited
- Williamson County Reg'l Planning Comm'n v. Hamilton Bank of Johnson City, 473 U.S. 172 (1985) (final decision required for regulatory takings ripeness)
- Bell v. Burson, 402 U.S. 535 (1971) (license deprivation requires due process before revocation)
- Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319 (1976) (three-factor due process balancing test)
- Zinermon v. Burch, 494 U.S. 113 (1990) (predeprivation process generally required before deprivation)
- Carey v. Piphus, 435 U.S. 247 (1978) (procedural due process violation actionable for nominal damages)
- Rosedale Missionary Baptist Church v. New Orleans City, 641 F.3d 86 (2011) (ripeness when ancillary takings; state takings before due process claim can be evaluated)
- John Corp. v. City of Houston, 214 F.3d 573 (2000) (ripeness and finality; separate handling of procedural due process when not purely ancillary to taking)
- Hidden Oaks Ltd. v. City of Austin, 138 F.3d 1036 (1998) (procedural due process may be separate from takings when injury is not solely the taking)