88 F. Supp. 3d 34
D.R.I.2015Background
- Pro se plaintiff John Devaney sues the Churches, Town of Narragansett, and related church officials over church bells near his Narragansett home.
- Plaintiff asserts federal constitutional claims (Establishment Clause, Takings, Due Process, Equal Protection) and Rhode Island nuisance law, with claims against the Town and the Roman Catholic Bishop of Providence.
- Narragansett’s Noise Ordinance provides bell exemptions (stationary bells, bells tied to places of worship, bell-tower performances) and sets decibel limits for other sounds.
- Town’s solicitor advised the bells exemption would control, prompting the filing of this federal action.
- Defendants move to dismiss under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6); Magistrate Sullivan recommends dismissal of federal claims and state claims against the Town and Bishop, with remaining church-related nuisance claims dismissed without prejudice.
- The district court adopted the report, granting the motions to dismiss and allowing fee motions; no judgment entered until all claims resolved.
- The factual record includes historical context of bell ringing in New England and the secular nature of most exemptions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Establishment Clause viability under Lemon/endorsement framework | Devaney alleges Town exempted bells to favor religion | Town exemptions are secular and neutral | Establishment claim dismissed as fatally deficient |
| Standing to challenge the Noise Ordinance | Devaney has injury from bells’ effects on his home life | Injury traceable to bells; ordinance exemptions neutral | Standing found for Establishment challenge based on alleged Town stance; later decisions focus on merits and standing specifics |
| Federal private nuisance claim against Town | Town’s exemption allowed bells harming Devaney | Nuisance claim against Town not plausible; Town not cause of Churches' conduct | State law nuisance claim against Town dismissed for lack of basis and notice requirement |
| Claims against Roman Catholic Bishop of Providence; private actor/Veil piercing | Bishop liable due to ecclesiastical oversight | Rhode Island law does not pierce veil; Bishop not personally liable | Claims against Bishop dismissed; no individual liability established |
| Supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state-law nuisance claims | Nuisance claims should stay in federal court despite federal claim dismissal | Courts should decline supplemental jurisdiction | Declined supplemental jurisdiction; state-law claims dismissed without prejudice to refile in state court |
Key Cases Cited
- Estelle, U.S. ex rel. Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97 (U.S. (1976)) (liberal pleading rules do not override procedural protections)
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (U.S. (2007)) (pleading must have plausible entitlement to relief)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (U.S. (2009)) (pleadings require factual content, not mere legal conclusions)
- Town of Greece v. Galloway, 134 S. Ct. 1811 (U.S. (2014)) (establishment inquiries may rely on history and tradition in some contexts)
- Auger v. State ex rel. Providence, 44 A.3d 1218 (R.I. (2012)) (local regulation of noise; presumption of constitutionality of enactment)
- Lugar v. Edmondson Oil Co., 457 U.S. 922 (U.S. (1982)) (state action requirement for private-party liability under federal law)
- Monell v. N.Y. City Dep't of Soc. Servs., 436 U.S. 658 (U.S. (1978)) (municipal liability requires official policy or custom)
- Rojas v. Fitch, 928 F. Supp. 155 (D.R.I. (1996)) (establishment clause accommodation exemptions may be permissible)