Rankel v. Town of Somers
2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 24815
S.D.N.Y.2014Background
- Plaintiff Robert Rankel (pro se, trustee for Carlo Rankel trust) alleges from 2008–2013 that Somers Town officials, DEC officers, and neighbors conspired to harass him—issuing wetlands violations, entering his property, removing political signs, blocking a right-of-way, and denying records and permits.
- In October 2008 DEC Officer Gillis and Somers Officer Barker issued appearance tickets after a neighbor complaint; Town Engineer Gagne later filed wetlands charges that were later resolved by settlement.
- Plaintiff claims First, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth and Fourteenth Amendment violations and state-law claims, including First Amendment retaliation and facial/as-applied challenge to Town sign laws.
- DEC defendants moved to dismiss for insufficient service and timeliness; Town defendants moved under Rules 12(b)(1) and (6). Neighbor defendants did not move.
- The Court dismissed claims against DEC defendants for insufficient service (and as time-barred any § 1983 claims tied to the October 25, 2008 entry, except malicious prosecution).
- The Court dismissed most § 1983 claims against the Town and all claims against Neighbor defendants and DEC officers with prejudice, but allowed Rankel’s First Amendment challenge to the Town sign laws to proceed against the Town only.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Service of process on DEC | Rankel says DEC was served by mail (Acknowledgment of Service). | DEC says they were never properly served; mail insufficient. | DEC not properly served; FAC dismissed as to DEC defendants. |
| Statute of limitations for 2008 entry (§1983 claims) | Events are ongoing / continuing violation tolls limitations. | Claims accrued in 2008; three-year limitations bar claims filed after 2011. | Claims based on Gillis’s Oct. 25, 2008 entry (except malicious prosecution) are time-barred; continuing-violation doctrine inapplicable to discrete acts. |
| First Amendment retaliation & chill | Rankel alleges protected conduct (signs, FOILs, speech) and retaliatory prosecutions, sign removals, access interference. | Town contends conduct not protected or no causal link; actions would have occurred regardless. | Retaliation claim dismissed for failure to plausibly plead causation or temporal nexus; however facial and as-applied challenge to Town sign laws survives against the Town. |
| Malicious prosecution / Fourth Amendment searches | Rankel alleges baseless wetlands prosecutions, prolonged hearings, repeated property searches and false blame. | Defendants point to settlement disposition and argue no favorable termination; entries onto driveway/approach not searches for Fourth Amendment. | Malicious prosecution dismissed because termination resulted from settlement (not favorable). Fourth Amendment search claims dismissed for failure to plead a search (mere entry to deliver tickets not a search). |
| Equal protection (selective enforcement / class-of-one) | Rankel alleges selective prosecution and disparate treatment benefiting neighbors. | Defendants say no plausible comparator or basis shown. | Equal protection claim dismissed for failure to plead similarly situated comparators or extreme similarity. |
| Stigma-plus (procedural due process) | Rankel alleges defamatory statements and business harm plus additional harms. | Defendants assert no state-imposed ‘‘plus’’ beyond reputational injury; available process defeats claim. | Stigma-plus dismissed: reputational harms and business loss insufficient; adequate process existed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (pleading standard: plausible factual allegations required)
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (complaint requires more than labels and conclusions)
- Wallace v. Kato, 549 U.S. 384 (2007) (§ 1983 claim accrual rule: claim accrues when plaintiff knows or should know of injury)
- Dorsett v. Cnty. of Nassau, 732 F.3d 157 (2d Cir. 2013) (elements of First Amendment retaliation claim)
- Velez v. Levy, 401 F.3d 75 (2d Cir. 2005) (retaliation claims require specific factual allegations; pleading limits)
- Jocks v. Tavernier, 316 F.3d 128 (2d Cir. 2003) (elements of malicious prosecution under New York law for § 1983 purposes)
- Ciambriello v. Cnty. of Nassau, 292 F.3d 307 (2d Cir. 2002) (conspiracy to create state action requires factual detail)
- Gorman-Bakos v. Cornell Coop. Extension, 252 F.3d 545 (2d Cir. 2001) (temporal proximity guidance for causation)
- Pearl v. City of Long Beach, 296 F.3d 76 (2d Cir. 2002) (accrual rule: awareness of injury starts limitations period)
- Segal v. City of New York, 459 F.3d 207 (2d Cir. 2006) (Monell and stigma-plus: availability of process defeats stigma-plus claim)