Speed v. Mills
919 F. Supp. 2d 122
D.D.C.2013Background
- Mills, as third party plaintiff, sues the District of Columbia under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for alleged taking of property related to Lot 810 subdivision and subsequent tax actions.
- The District moved to dismiss; Mills opposed, District replied; court grants District’s motion to dismiss.
- Subdivision of Lot 810 into Lots 860 and 861 occurred; Mills allegedly owned Lot 810 prior to subdivision and was not notified of pending subdivision.
- Tax bills issued for Lots 860 and 861; Lot 861 was sold for unpaid taxes; Heartwood 88 LLC acquired Lot 861; Mills later deeded Lot 861 to Heartwood for $1,000.
- Mills alleges a chain of governmental actions culminating in a deed and tax sale that deprived him of property; plaintiff asserts § 1983 claims under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments.
- Court concludes the Fifth Amendment takings claim fails because tax sales are not takings, and Mills has not alleged an actionable District policy or deliberate policymaker conduct; federal claims are dismissed with leave to refile state-law claims in Superior Court.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does Mills state a Fifth Amendment takings claim? | Mills asserts the plat, CFO certification, and tax deed actions took property. | Tax sales are not takings under the Fifth Amendment and no District policy is alleged. | Takings claim fails; not a taking under Fifth Amendment. |
| Are Mills’ due process claims cognizable under § 1983 against the District? | Actions show deliberate deprivation by District officials. | No municipal policy or custom alleged; § 1983 remedy not available here. | No § 1983 due process claim; insufficient policy evidence. |
| Can Mills proceed with substantive or procedural due process claims without a District policy? | Pembaur theory allows liability for single policymaker decisions. | No deliberate policymaker decisions alleged; mere negligence or error insufficient. | Substantive/Procedural due process claims fail; no policymaker conduct shown. |
| Should the Court exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any state-law claims after dismissing federal claims? | State claims should proceed in federal court under supplemental jurisdiction. | Court should decline supplemental jurisdiction. | Declines supplemental jurisdiction; plaintiff may refile in Superior Court. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Clarke, 445 U.S. 253 (1980) (self-executing takings concept permits direct takings claims under Fifth Amendment)
- First English Evangelical Lutheran Church of Glendale v. Los Angeles Cty., 482 U.S. 304 (1987) (due process and takings considerations in enforcement contexts)
- Daniels v. Williams, 474 U.S. 327 (1986) (mere negligent deprivation not a due process violation)
- Pembaur v. City of Cincinnati, 475 U.S. 469 (1986) (single policymaker decisions may impose municipal liability under §1983 under appropriate circumstances)
- Elkins v. District of Columbia, 690 F.3d 554 (D.C. Cir. 2012) (substantive due process and public-rights considerations within D.C. context)
- Bolling v. Sharpe, 347 U.S. 497 (1954) (Fourth Amendment applicability to the District of Columbia and due process considerations)
- Monell v. Dep’t of Social Servs. of City of New York, 436 U.S. 658 (1978) (municipal liability requires policy or custom)
- Daniels v. Williams, 474 U.S. 327 (1986) (due process standard—deliberate deprivation vs. negligence)