38 F. Supp. 3d 391
S.D.N.Y.2014Background
- Plaintiff Robert Clavin sues County of Orange under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for deprivation of a property interest without due process arising from the failure to reissue a Master Electrician’s License.
- Local Law No. 8 of 2007 established qualifications, exam requirements, and a Board to grant Master Electrician’s Licenses, plus a grandfather clause.
- Local Law No. 2 of 2011 added Class B and Class C licenses, which are more limited than the Master license.
- Plaintiff obtained a Master Electrician’s License in 2009 via grandfathering, valid through March 31, 2010, but was not renewed and received a Class C license in 2010–2011.
- Plaintiff pursued state relief via Article 78, with 2013 order directing issuance of a Master license, but the County appealed, triggering a CPLR stay; plaintiff then filed this § 1983 action in 2014.
- The court granted defendant's Rule 12(b)(6) motion, found subject matter jurisdiction, and rejected arguments based on accrual, continuing violations, and vagueness.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether plaintiff has a cognizable property interest in a Master Electrician’s License. | Clavin asserts entitlement to a master license through grandfathering and the Board’s determinations. | County contends no secured property right existed under the local laws as applied. | Claim survives only to required pleading; however, not dispositive here. |
| Whether Rooker-Feldman bars the federal claim. | Clavin argues state-court judgments do not preclude federal review of due process claims. | County contends state judgments preclude federal relief under Rooker-Feldman. | Rooker-Feldman does not apply; Court has subject-matter jurisdiction. |
| Whether the § 1983 claim is time-barred by the statute of limitations. | Clavin contends ongoing denial constitutes ongoing injury. | County argues accrual occurred in 2010 when license denial happened, outside the statute. | Claim accrued in 2010; time-barred. |
| Whether Local Law Nos. 8/2/11 are impermissibly vague as applied. | Clavin challenges vagueness of licensure standards and discretionary Board actions. | County asserts the laws clearly set forth qualifications and process; no inherent vagueness. | Not unconstitutionally vague. |
Key Cases Cited
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (U.S. 2009) (plausibility and pleading standard)
- Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (U.S. 2007) (heightened pleading standard)
- Ciambriello v. County of Nassau, 292 F.3d 307 (2d Cir. 2002) (requires deprivation and due process showing)
- Jaghory v. N.Y. State Dept. of Educ., 131 F.3d 326 (2d Cir. 1997) (continuing violation informally criticized; accrual analyzed)
- Cornwell v. Robinson, 23 F.3d 694 (2d Cir. 1994) (continuing violation doctrine cautions; not present here)
- Nat'l Railroad Passenger Corp. v. Morgan, 536 U.S. 101 (U.S. 2002) (continuing violation framework; accrual guidance)
- Dickerson v. Napolitano, 604 F.3d 732 (2d Cir. 2010) (facial vagueness standards; applied here)
- United States v. Salerno, 481 U.S. 745 (1987) (statutory vagueness standards cited)
- Hill v. Colorado, 530 U.S. 703 (U.S. 2000) (arbitrary enforcement concerns in vagueness analysis)
- Farrell v. Burke, 449 F.3d 470 (2d Cir. 2006) (vagueness analysis: reasonable understanding and standards)
- United States v. Rybicki, 354 F.3d 124 (2d Cir. 2003) (as-applied vagueness and mens rea considerations)
- City of Chicago v. Morales, 527 U.S. 41 (U.S. 1999) (vagueness and overbreadth principles)
- Hoblock v. Albany Cnty. Bd. of Elections, 422 F.3d 77 (2d Cir. 2005) (Rooker-Feldman formulation and requirements)