Miller v. Town of Wenham
2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 14720
| 1st Cir. | 2016Background
- Miller owns a residence in Wenham, MA; adjacent property is operated by 110, Inc. as a substance-abuse treatment facility (Cross Keys Retreat) located in a Residential District where commercial/multiple-occupant uses are generally restricted.
- 110, Inc. claimed Dover Amendment (Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 40A § 3) educational-use exemption and the Town initially accepted that position in November 2013 without public notice to Miller.
- Miller filed a zoning enforcement request; the Building Inspector conducted a hearing, found 110, Inc. was not exempt under the Dover Amendment, and ordered closure (July 2014), stayed for appeal to the ZBA.
- 110, Inc. sued the Town in federal court asserting Dover Amendment, FHA, and ADA claims; litigation prompted settlement negotiations and a September 26, 2014 Settlement Agreement in which the Town paid $125,000 and agreed (via a claimed reasonable accommodation) not to obstruct 110, Inc.’s operations.
- Miller learned of the Settlement Agreement later and appealed to the ZBA; the ZBA ultimately upheld a reasonable-accommodation decision allowing operation subject to conditions.
- Miller sued in state court alleging (among other counts) a § 1983 procedural due process claim and a declaratory-judgment claim to annul the Settlement Agreement; the Town removed the case, the district court dismissed the federal due process claim, dismissed the declaratory count as moot, and remanded the remaining state-law zoning claim to state court.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Town decision(s) deprived Miller of a property interest without procedural due process | Miller: Town’s undisclosed acceptance of 110, Inc.’s positions, the Building Inspector’s accommodation, and the Settlement Agreement deprived him of a state-created property interest (enforcement of zoning) without prior notice/hearing | Town: Actions were discretionary non-enforcement decisions and settlement accommodations; Miller retained full procedural remedies (ZBA and state-court review) so no constitutional deprivation | Held: No § 1983 due-process violation. Any interest is in enforcement of ordinance (not in official’s exercise); Miller kept administrative and judicial remedies, so no constitutionally protected deprivation requiring prior process |
| Whether declaratory-judgment claim invalidating the Settlement Agreement is moot and whether federal court should retain jurisdiction over state-law claims | Miller: Settlement Agreement and ZBA decision have independent force; claim not moot | Town: District court can dismiss as moot; additionally challenges Miller’s standing under Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 40A § 17 | Held: District court’s mootness dismissal vacated. Case remanded to state court for resolution of the declaratory-judgment claim and other state-law issues (comity, judicial economy, and familiarity with state law support remand) |
Key Cases Cited
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (plausibility standard for pleadings)
- Town of Castle Rock v. Gonzales, 545 U.S. 748 (statutory right to request enforcement does not create a protected entitlement to enforcement)
- Bd. of Regents of State Colls. v. Roth, 408 U.S. 564 (property interests are created by state law)
- Parratt v. Taylor, 451 U.S. 527 (postdeprivation remedies and limits on due-process claims)
- Hudson v. Palmer, 468 U.S. 517 (practical limits on treating routine administrative nonactions as deprivations)
- Clukey v. Town of Camden, 717 F.3d 52 (First Circuit on protected property interests and procedural due process)
- Camelio v. Am. Fed'n, 137 F.3d 666 (factors for retaining supplemental jurisdiction over state claims)
- Desjardins v. Willard, 777 F.3d 43 (remand of state-law claims after dismissal of federal claims)