Fortunatus v. Clinton County, 937 F. Supp. 2d 320

Fortunatus sues Clinton County under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for alleged due process and equal protection violations connected to tax-foreclosure reconveyance.
County acquired Fortunatus’s property via tax foreclosure on March 18, 2011 and sold it at a public auction on June 2, 2011.
Liberty obtained a reconveyance through a private sale after challenging the procedure, including prior Article 78 petitions.
Fortunatus pursued an Article 78 petition in New York State Supreme Court, which Justice Muller dismissed in February 2012 on the merits; findings included non-alike treatment of Liberty and Fortunatus and no duty to hold a hardship hearing.
Defendants moved for summary judgment; Fortunatus cross-moved for summary judgment; the court granted defendants’ motion and denied Fortunatus’s cross-motion, holding collateral estoppel and no constitutional violation.
The court concluded that Fortunatus is collaterally estopped from relitigating due process and equal protection issues, and even if a violation were found, qualified immunity would apply.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Collateral estoppel applicability	Fortunatus argues NY Article 78 findings should not control this federal action.	The NY Article 78 judgment precludes relitigation of identical issues.	Collateral estoppel applies; prior NY judgment binds Fortunatus on those issues.
Race-based equal protection claim	Fortunatus asserts race discrimination influenced the reconveyance decisions.	No evidence of racially discriminatory purpose; treatment was race-neutral.	No genuine race-based equal protection claim; insufficient showing of discriminatory purpose.
Class-of-one equal protection claim	Fortunatus contends he was singled out compared to others (Liberty) without rational basis.	Liberty and Fortunatus were not sufficiently similarly situated; policy had rational basis.	No valid class-of-one claim; no extraordinary similarity shown.
Due process (hardship hearing and policy writing)	Failure to provide a hardship hearing violated due process; policy not in writing worsened process.	No duty to provide a hardship hearing; policy discretionary and rational.	No due process violation; no binding duty to hold a hardship hearing or publish a policy.
Qualified immunity	Defendants violated a clearly established constitutional right; no immunity.	Officials acted within discretionary function; right not clearly established.	Qualified immunity applies; no clearly established rights violated at the time.

Washington v. Davis, 426 U.S. 229 (U.S. 1976) (essential for burden of proof in equal protection claims)
Arlington Heights v. Metro. Housing Dev. Corp., 429 U.S. 252 (U.S. 1977) (discriminatory purpose required for equal protection claims)
Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79 (U.S. 1986) (discriminatory purpose and effects must be proven)
Harlen Assocs. v. Inc. of Mineola, 273 F.3d 494 (2d Cir. 2001) (selective enforcement and rational basis considerations in zoning/permits context)
Interport Pilots Agency, Inc. v. Sammis, 14 F.3d 133 (2d Cir. 1994) (due process relevance of adjudicative vs. legislative action)