Rosedale Missionary Baptist Church v. New Orleans City
2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 7130
| 5th Cir. | 2011Background
- Hurricane Gustav led the city to issue 25 demolition notices, including for 4001 Reynes Street where the church was located.
- The city demolished the church property without giving notice to the church.
- A consent decree required notice for demolitions of structures deemed a threat due to hurricane damage, but the decree did not cover takings or due process claims; damage to the church pre-dated Gustav and the decree applied to Orleans Parish property.
- The church pursued takings and both procedural and substantive due process claims, plus just compensation, but the district court dismissed the takings claim as unripe.
- The jury found a due process violation and awarded damages, but the church did not appeal the takings dismissal; on appeal the Fifth Circuit dismissed the case as unripe for procedural due process relief.
- The court ultimately reversed the judgment and rendered a dismissal without prejudice, holding the procedural due process claim was unripe and the takings claim not before the court.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether substantive due process was preserved | Church asserted substantive due process in complaint but did not brief or develop it. | City contends substantive claim was not properly preserved and effectively subsumed by procedural claim. | Waived; not preserved for appeal. |
| Whether the procedural due process claim is ripe | Ripeness should permit review of pre-demolition process violations. | Ripeness requires resolution of takings claim first (state procedures) and injuries tied to that outcome. | Procedural due process claim unripe under general ripeness principles; dismissal affirmed. |
| Whether Williamson County ripeness applies to this case | Ripeness arguments should not bar review or should be addressed as non-jurisdictional. | Ripeness under Williamson County governs takings; procedural claims depend on takings outcome. | Williamson County ripeness deemed prudential/not jurisdictional; court still dismisses due to general ripeness and lack of takings adjudication. |
| Relation between state takings claim and federal due process claim | If takings adjudicated in state court, due process review should follow. | Takings outcome controls whether due process injury exists; state proceedings must occur. | State takings adjudication must proceed; case dismissed as unripe to avoid prematurely addressing due process. |
Key Cases Cited
- Stop the Beach Renourishment, Inc. v. Fla. Dep't of Envtl. Prot., 130 S. Ct. 2592 (2010) (ripeness/prudential limits on takings and related claims; Williamson concerns reiterated)
- John Corp. v. City of Houston, 214 F.3d 573 (5th Cir. 2000) (takings must be adjudicated before evaluating procedural due process in reverse; ripeness analysis commonly paired with takings)
- Williamson Cnty. Reg'l Planning Comm'n v. Hamilton Bank, 473 U.S. 172 (1985) (foundation for state procedures/just compensation ripeness in takings claims)
- Samaad v. City of Dallas, 940 F.2d 925 (5th Cir. 1991) (previously treated Williamson County ripeness as jurisdictional; later clarified as prudential)
- Nat'l Park Hospitality Ass'n v. Dep't of Interior, 538 U.S. 803 (2003) (ripeness involves fitness and hardship; court may raise sua sponte)
- Bigelow v. Mich. Dep't of Nat. Res., 970 F.2d 154 (6th Cir. 1992) (illustrates purposes of procedural due process in takings context)