Novotny v. Tripp County, SD, 2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 25079

Novotny sued Tripp County, its commissioners, weed board members, and sheriff under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1985 alleging First and Fourteenth Amendment violations and civil conspiracy.
District court granted summary judgment in favor of defendants, dismissing all claims.
Novotny alleged hostility by Virgil Novotny and Turnquist toward him, including threats to stop newspaper publication of his letters.
Virgil allegedly pressured a newspaper to stop publishing Novotny’s letters; Novotny contends this targeted him for political retaliation.
Enforcement of county weed ordinances against Novotny was allegedly selective and discretionary; Novotny relied on alleged unequal enforcement and protective orders.
Court affirmed district court’s grant of summary judgment; no genuine dispute as to material facts supporting constitutional violations.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Were the First Amendment claims viable despite newspaper editorial control?	Novotny asserts defendant Virgil’s threat infringed his rights.	Threats to a privately owned newspaper do not implicate Novotny's rights.	No violation; standing and editorial control favor newspaper.
Did Novotny state a substantive due process claim?	Novotny had a protected property interest in his profession subjected to arbitrary interference.	No shocking arbitrariness or due process violation shown.	No substantive due process violation.
Did Novotny state an equal protection claim under class-of-one theory?	Enforcement of weed ordinances was unequal against Novotny.	Discretionary enforcement and subjective decisions do not support class-of-one claim.	No equal protection violation; Engquist controls."
Does civil conspiracy or municipal liability stand without underlying violations?	Conspiracy/municipal liability may attach to underlying rights.	Without underlying constitutional violations, conspiracy/municipal liability fails.	Conspiracy and municipal liability fail without underlying rights.

Hill v. Colorado, 530 U.S. 703 (2000) (First Amendment rights extend beyond overt harassment to persuasion efforts)
Miami Herald Publ'g Co. v. Tornillo, 418 U.S. 241 (1974) (newspaper editorial control rests with publisher, not individual readers)
Warth v. Seldin, 422 U.S. 490 (1975) (standing and causation requirements for constitutional claims)
Van Zee v. Hanson, 630 F.3d 1126 (8th Cir. 2011) (standard for reviewing summary judgment; de novo review)
Mays v. Rhodes, 255 F.3d 644 (8th Cir. 2001) (hearsay and evidentiary limitations affect equal protection review)
Engquist v. Or. Dep't of Agric., 553 U.S. 591 (2008) (class-of-one claims do not apply to discretionary state employment decisions)
Vill. of Willowbrook v. Olech, 528 U.S. 562 (2000) (recognizes class-of-one equal protection but limited to arbitrary classifications)
Gallagher v. Magner, 619 F.3d 823 (8th Cir. 2010) (substantive due process requires egregious and shocking conduct)
Brooks v. Tri-Systems, Inc., 425 F.3d 1109 (8th Cir. 2005) (hearsay limitations affect summary judgment)
Brunsting v. Lutsen Mountains Corp., 601 F.3d 813 (8th Cir. 2010) (hearsay evidence not sufficient to defeat summary judgment)