Wyrostek v. Nash, Jr.
1:10-cv-00351
D.R.I.Oct 31, 2013Background
- Jeffrey and Linda Wyrostek purchased vacant land in Warren, RI and obtained a permit in July 2007 to build a single-family home.
- Plaintiffs built a full basement though their permit indicated a crawl space; Town building official William Nash issued a stop‑work order and demanded as‑built plans and other information to address height, drainage, and runoff concerns.
- Over 2007–2009 Nash required redesign for drainage, additional engineering data, erosion controls, a fire‑sprinkler permit, and multiple inspections; the project ultimately passed and received a certificate of occupancy in March 2009.
- Plaintiffs sued under § 1983 and state constitutional analogues claiming substantive due process and equal protection violations, plus declaratory and injunctive relief and damages; Defendants moved for summary judgment.
- The Court found the record showed Plaintiffs’ early, unapproved changes (full basement, added fill) justified Nash’s demands and inspections, and concluded Defendants’ actions did not rise to constitutional violations; summary judgment granted for Defendants.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiffs' Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Substantive due process: whether Nash’s conduct "shocked the conscience" | Nash issued a stop‑work order, imposed extra requirements, withheld evidence and lied — conduct was malicious and conscience‑shocking | Nash enforced code and responded to legitimate deviations and neighbor concerns in good faith | Court: Not conscience‑shocking; no substantive due process violation; summary judgment for Defendants |
| Equal protection (traditional): selective enforcement or bad‑faith targeting | Wyrosteks were singled out and subjected to requirements not imposed on other single‑family homeowners; motivated by malice | Differences attributable to Wyrosteks’ unapproved plan changes, added fill, neighbor complaints — not malicious or in bad faith | Court: Plaintiffs failed to show they were similarly situated and failed to prove malicious/bad‑faith intent; claim fails |
| Equal protection (class‑of‑one): intentional different treatment without rational basis | Nash treated them differently for no rational reason | Officials had rational basis (changes, topography, runoff, height concerns) | Court: Even if similarly situated, rational basis existed; class‑of‑one claim fails |
| Declaratory relief / fees to Pare and injunctive relief | Plaintiffs sought declaration they were not liable for Pare’s fees and injunction against harassment | Defendants represented Warren no longer sought Pare’s fees; Nash’s actions lawful so injunctive relief not warranted | Court: Pare‑fees claim moot; injunctive relief denied; qualified immunity need not be reached since no constitutional violation |
Key Cases Cited
- Taylor v. Am. Chemistry Council, 576 F.3d 16 (1st Cir. 2009) (summary judgment standard explained)
- Mongeau v. City of Marlborough, 492 F.3d 14 (1st Cir. 2007) (substantive due process requires conscience‑shocking conduct)
- Pagan v. Calderon, 448 F.3d 16 (1st Cir. 2006) (description of conscience‑shocking standard)
- Nestor Colon Medina & Sucesores, Inc. v. Custodio, 964 F.2d 32 (1st Cir. 1992) (limits on relief for political threats to municipal officials)
- Eichenlaub v. Township of Indiana, 385 F.3d 274 (3d Cir. 2004) (examples of conduct approaching conscience‑shocking in land‑use context)
- Licari v. Ferruzzi, 22 F.3d 344 (1st Cir. 1994) (permitting revocation and enforcement actions contrasted with ordinary disputes)
- Cordi‑Allen v. Conlon, 494 F.3d 245 (1st Cir. 2007) (requirement of high degree of similarity for equal protection comparators)
- Vill. of Willowbrook v. Olech, 528 U.S. 562 (2000) (recognition of class‑of‑one equal protection theory)
- Tapalian v. Tusino, 377 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 2004) (elements for selective‑enforcement equal protection claims)
- Baker v. Coxe, 230 F.3d 470 (1st Cir. 2000) (arbitrary permit denial does not automatically satisfy constitutional threshold)