660 F.3d 532
1st Cir.2011Background
- Harron and Big Time sued the Town of Franklin and officials under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for alleged equal protection and due process violations related to denying/transferring a liquor license for Harron’s tavern.
- Harron negotiated to lease a tavern near the Town Hall and to transfer Repsac’s liquor license; renovations and licenses were pursued, but the license transfer/issuance was never approved.
- Harron opened the tavern and served liquor without a license for several months, while Town authorities indicated a license would be forthcoming.
- In 2007 the Franklin Police conducted a crackdown culminating in a raid; the negative publicity harmed the tavern’s business.
- Ultimately the Town refused to transfer Repsac’s license or issue a new one, and Harron learned the Chief of Police opposed issuing/transferring the license.
- The district court dismissed Harron’s federal and state-law claims; Harron appealed-the district court’s dismissal of federal claims is affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Substantive due process shock the conscience | Harron argues executive acts were conscience-shocking | Town asserts acts were legitimate enforcement of liquor laws | Claims fail; acts not conscience-shocking |
| Procedural due process protection of license interest | Harron contends he had a protected license-related liberty/property interest | No protected license interest existed under Massachusetts law | No protected interest; claims fail |
| Equal protection—malicious or arbitrary selective treatment | Harron alleges discriminatory/impermissible targeting | Allegations insufficient to show selective treatment | Equal protection claims fail |
Key Cases Cited
- Pagán v. Calderón, 448 F.3d 16 (1st Cir.2006) (shock the conscience + protected right test for substantive due process)
- Martínez v. Cui, 608 F.3d 54 (1st Cir.2010) (no rigid two-step; conscience-shock + protected right focus)
- Hasenfus v. LaJeunesse, 175 F.3d 68 (1st Cir.1999) (conscience-shocking standard: outrageous, intolerable actions)
- Amsden v. Moran, 904 F.2d 748 (1st Cir.1990) (misconduct must show arbitrariness beyond mere error)
- González-Fuentes v. Molina, 607 F.3d 864 (1st Cir.2010) (conduct shocks conscience; determine fundamental liberty interest)
- DePoutot v. Raffaelly, 424 F.3d 112 (1st Cir.2005) (due process procedural analysis for municipalities)
- Grendel's Den, Inc. v. Goodwin, 662 F.2d 88 (1st Cir.1981) (license denial contexts if protected interests exist)
- Jen eski v. City of Worcester, 476 F.3d 14 (1st Cir.2007) (property interest defined by state law)
- Santiago v. Puerto Rico, 655 F.3d 61 (1st Cir.2011) (§1983 requires color of state law)
- Lewis v. City of Sacramento, 523 U.S. 833 (1998) (conscience-shock and due process principles)