Julious Mosley v. City of Wickliffe
852 F.3d 497
| 6th Cir. | 2017Background
- In 2009 Wickliffe passed Ordinance 2009-49 requiring a permit to operate a "nightclub," defining duties, location-based prohibitions (e.g., within 500 feet of schools/churches/residential districts), application rules, and a 30-day decision deadline for the Director of Public Safety.
- Dan Miller leased lounge space at the Mosley Motel to operate Suede Nights; Miller applied for an occupancy permit and an Ohio liquor license but the State denied the liquor license after local religious groups opposed it; Miller did not appeal the state denial.
- Miller, Mosley, and Joseph Cirino (Spot 82) never applied for a nightclub permit under the Ordinance; Spot 82 received a temporary-occupancy permit later revoked for reasons unrelated to the Ordinance (allegedly that it "looked too much like a nightclub").
- Plaintiffs sued in federal court asserting facial and as-applied constitutional challenges (vagueness, overbreadth, equal protection, discrimination under § 2000a, § 1983 claims, and state tort/ takings claims); district court granted summary judgment for the City, dismissing primarily for lack of standing and ripeness and reaching some merits issues.
- The Sixth Circuit affirmed, holding plaintiffs lacked Article III standing for both as-applied and facial challenges because there was no final decision by the City and no credible, imminent threat of enforcement; the court declined to base its decision on prudential-standing doctrines.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standing for as-applied challenge (injury in fact/finality) | Plaintiffs: futility excused not applying; City already showed opposition so a denial was inevitable | City: no final decision; plaintiffs never applied so no concrete injury; Director of Public Safety had limited, mandatory standards | Held: No standing — plaintiffs failed to show a final decision or meaningful application; as-applied claims nonjusticiable and unripe |
| Standing for facial challenge (pre-enforcement credible threat) | Plaintiffs: the Ordinance’s breadth/vagueness chills protected conduct and creates a credible threat of enforcement | City: no statement it would enforce or deny permits under Ordinance here; administrative actions were unrelated | Held: No standing — plaintiffs failed to demonstrate a sufficiently credible threat of enforcement to make claim ripe |
| Redressability (effect of State liquor-license denial) | Plaintiffs: district court erred treating state liquor denial as blocking relief under the Ordinance | City: State denial effectively prevented plaintiffs from operating a nightclub even if Ordinance set aside | Held: Court found district court erred to rely on liquor denial for redressability but deemed error harmless because standing/finality failures were dispositive |
| Prudential/equitable ripeness (concurring view) | Plaintiffs: pre-enforcement review necessary because ordinance threatens business plans | City: court should decline equitable review absent application and concrete record | Held: Concurrence would dispose on equitable-ripeness grounds (Abbott Labs factors) — result same but differing rationale; majority relied on constitutional standing instead |
Key Cases Cited
- Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (establishes injury-in-fact, causation, redressability standing elements)
- Whitmore v. Arkansas, 495 U.S. 149 (concreteness and particularization in injury-in-fact)
- Williamson County Regional Planning Comm’n v. Hamilton Bank, 473 U.S. 172 (finality requirement and distinction from exhaustion)
- Bannum, Inc. v. City of Louisville, 958 F.2d 1354 (6th Cir. 1992) (futility/finality exception when city shows adamant opposition and meaningful application submitted)
- G & V Lounge v. Michigan Liquor Control Comm’n, 23 F.3d 1071 (6th Cir. 1994) (pre-enforcement challenge allowed where local officials threatened enforcement and discretion was unbridled)
- City of Lakewood v. Plain Dealer Publ’g Co., 486 U.S. 750 (facial challenge to licensing schemes that vest unbridled discretion)
- Patsy v. Florida Board of Regents, 457 U.S. 496 (no administrative-exhaustion requirement for § 1983 claims)
- Abbott Laboratories v. Gardner, 387 U.S. 136 (equitable ripeness factors for pre-enforcement review)