Peter Sauers v. Township of Lower Southampton
17-1093
| 3rd Cir. | Jan 9, 2018Background
- Peter Sauers, pro se, sued Lower Southampton Township challenging zoning actions; complaint was vague and lacked clear factual allegations.
- Sauers alleged diminution in property value, denial of public hearings, and violations of due process, equal protection, takings, and other state-law claims.
- Township moved to dismiss under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6); District Court found jurisdiction but dismissed for failure to state a claim and denied further amendment as futile.
- Sauers appealed the dismissals of his procedural and substantive due process, equal protection, § 1983 civil‑rights/retaliation, and Takings Clause claims.
- The Third Circuit reviewed de novo and affirmed, holding Sauers’ amended complaint lacked sufficient factual matter to state any plausible federal claim.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Procedural due process (notice/hearings) | Sauers: Township failed to provide notice/hearings for variances and zoning actions affecting his property | Township: Public records show notice and hearings; complaint doesn’t actually allege variance decisions | Dismissed — complaint didn’t plead sufficient facts and did not clearly challenge variances; amendment was futile |
| Equal protection (selective treatment) | Sauers: Township granted driveway/variance to one property but denied similar relief to others | Township: No pleaded facts showing similarly situated comparators or irrational distinction | Dismissed — no facts alleged to show irrational distinction between similarly situated properties |
| § 1983 civil‑rights / First Amendment retaliation | Sauers: Counts construed liberally but he did not adequately plead retaliation; asserts broader Fifth/Fourteenth violations | Township: Claims insufficiently pled; other constitutional claims addressed in separate counts | Dismissed — failed to state a retaliation or other § 1983 claim; Fourteenth claims addressed elsewhere and rejected |
| Takings Clause (Fifth Amendment) | Sauers: Rezoning/neighboring development reduced property value without compensation, amounting to a taking | Township: No facts showing a government taking of Sauers’ property or exhaustion of state remedies | Dismissed — sparse allegations do not plausibly state a takings claim; amendment would be futile |
Key Cases Cited
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (pleading standard requires factual content to state a plausible claim)
- In re Asbestos Prod. Liab. Litig., 822 F.3d 125 (3d Cir. 2016) (standard of review for Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal)
- Phillips v. County of Allegheny, 515 F.3d 224 (3d Cir. 2008) (leave to amend not required where amendment would be futile)
- County Concrete Corp. v. Town of Roxbury, 442 F.3d 159 (3d Cir. 2006) (equal protection analysis for zoning challenges)
- Kost v. Kozakiewicz, 1 F.3d 176 (3d Cir. 1993) (issues forfeited if not argued on appeal)