Thomas R. Whittaker v. County of Lawrence
437 F. App'x 105
3rd Cir.2011Background
- Property Owners owned parcels within Millennium Park, an area identified for industrial development by LCEDC.
- Redevelopment Authority of Lawrence County (RALC) had authority to condemn; Declarations of Taking were filed July 29, 2004.
- Filing of federal § 1983 actions by Whittakers and Hamilton in 2004; district court stayed actions pending state eminent domain proceedings and Kelo decision.
- PA Commonwealth Court en banc held RALC improperly condemned property on December 22, 2008; district court reopened case and granted renewed dismissal motion December 7, 2009.
- District Court dismissed all federal claims; declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state-law claims; appeal followed.
- Court reviews de novo a District Court’s Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether public use under Fifth Amendment is defined federally or by state law. | Kelo allows federal floor; Pennsylvania law not controlling. | Kelo provides federal standard; states may impose stricter limits but not define public use contrary to federal floor. | Public use defined by federal floor; Fifth Amendment not violated. |
| Whether substantive due process was violated by alleged misuse of eminent domain. | County officials knowingly misused power without blight; shocks conscience. | No constitutional violation; state-law missteps do not equal due process violation. | Dismissal affirmed; no conscience-shocking conduct established. |
| Whether equal protection claims (class of one) survived. | Not blighted; arbitrary discrimination and lack of legitimate government interest. | Government has legitimate interest; treatment was not irrational or selective. | Dismissal affirmed; no federal equal protection violation. |
| Whether conspiracy, qualified immunity, and state-law claims were properly addressed. | Conspiracy to violate rights; immunity considerations; state claims should be addressed. | No underlying constitutional violation; immunity not triggered; state claims dismissed with federal claims. | Affirmed; no error in dismissal of related issues. |
Key Cases Cited
- Kelo v. City of New London, 545 U.S. 469 (U.S. 2005) (economic development can be public use under Fifth Amendment)
- County of Sacramento v. Lewis, 523 U.S. 833 (U.S. 1998) (shocks the conscience standard for substantive due process)
- Benn v. Universal Health Sys., Inc., 371 F.3d 165 (3d Cir. 2004) (conscience-shocking standard applies to state-law violations in due process)
- Chainey v. Street, 523 F.3d 200 (3d Cir. 2008) (state-law violations may shock conscience with additional facts)
- Eichenlaub v. Township of Indiana, 385 F.3d 274 (3d Cir. 2004) (additional facts may render state-law violations conscience-shocking)
- Willowbrook v. Olech, 528 U.S. 562 (U.S. 2000) (class-of-one equal protection standard)
- United Artists Theatre Circuit, Inc. v. Twp. of Warrington, 316 F.3d 392 (3d Cir. 2003) (bad-faith violation of state law not automatically constitutional)