Case Information
*3 Before: ROTH and ALDISERT, Circuit Judges, and RODRIGUEZ, District Judge [1]
(Opinion filed August 10, 2006 )
Robert J. Sugarman, Esquire (ARGUED) Sugarman and Associates, P.C.
Robert Morris Bldg., 11th Flr.
100 North 17th Street
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Counsel for Appellants James J. Byrne, Jr., Esquire (ARGUED) Kelly S. Sullivan, Esquire
Curran & Byrne, P.C.
606 East Baltimore Pike
P.O. Box 30
Media, PA 19063
Counsel for Appellees Township of Darby, Darby Township Zoning Hearing Board, John Dougherty, Jesse Byrd-Estes, Lamont Jacobs, John J. O’Neill, William Ryan, and John Ryan *4 Curtis P. Cheyney, III, Esquire (ARGUED) Swartz Campbell LLC
1601 Market Street, 34th Flr.
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Counsel for Appellees Delaware County Redevelopment Authority
Lee J. Janiczek, Esquire (ARGUED) Reilly, Janiczek & McDevitt, P.C.
The Widener Building
One South Penn Square
Suite 210, Mezzanine Level
Philadelphia, PA 19107
Counsel for Appellee Maureen Healy OPINION OF THE COURT
RODRIGUEZ, District Judge:
On its face, this case presents the Court with the issue of whether neighboring property owners who allege that their property values will be diminished and their neighborhood blighted by the construction of a storage facility have standing to sue under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The focus of this case is the propriety of the Darby Township Zoning Hearing Board’s (“Board”) decision to grant a variance, which permitted the construction of a storage facility in a residential zone, and the attendant State court decisions issued in the course of appeal. With the exception of the claim that Appellants’ property values will be damaged by the grant of the variance, we will affirm the district court’s dismissal of the Amended Complaint because Appellants have not alleged facts clearly demonstrating that they are proper parties to invoke the exercise of the federal court’s remedial powers. Insofar as Appellants Taliaferro and *5 Alexander have alleged injuries to their property values and neighborhood arising from the approval of the variance, however, we will reverse the district court’s dismissal.
I.
In 1960, Appellee Delaware County Redevelopment Authority acquired by condemnation a nine-acre tract of land in the Township of Darby (“Darby Township”). In furtherance of a twenty-year Urban Renewal Plan, an Agreement was entered into in 1967 by the Redevelopment Authority and a redeveloper, RUPACA, Inc. The Agreement contained a covenant binding the redeveloper and its successors and assigns until April 8, 1980, to devote the property to, and only to and in accordance with, the uses specified in the Urban Renewal Plan, i.e., for residential purposes. There was also a covenant, unlimited as to duration, for non-discriminatory use of the property. (App., Vol. II, 000218a.)
The Property was sold in 1969 to First Urban
Redevelopers. First Urban subsequently sold the property to
Charles Rappa, who sold it to Appellee Maureen Healy in 2002.
No develоpment had occurred between 1969 and 2002.
Although located in a partially commercial area, (App., Vol. II,
000063a), the Property was still zoned R-1 residential, so Healy
made a variance request to allow the construction of an 800-unit
self-storage facility. That request was supported by expert
testimony, which concluded that redevelopment to residential
use was not economically feasible. (App., Vol. II, 000050a,
000136a.) At the behest of Appellants Lee Taliaferro and
Samuel Alexander, the Delaware County Court of Common
Pleas remanded an original grant of the variance for additional
testimony and evidence, but after further hearings, the Board
granted the final request for a variance on May 8, 2003.
Appellants again appealed the decision to the Delaware County
Court of Common Pleas, which affirmed the Board. Appellants
then appealed to the Commonwealth Court, which affirmed the
Court of Common Pleas decision. See Taliaferro v. Darby Twp.
Zoning Hearing Bd., 873 A.2d 807 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2005),
reh’g denied
,
(June 1, 2005), and appeal denied
,
II.
In the meantime, the Complaint in this matter was filed in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on June 9, 2003. Plaintiffs Lee Taliaferro and Samuel Alexander are members оf the African-American community in Darby Township and neighboring property owners to the land in question. Plaintiffs Beatrice Moore and Bernice Wilson were residents whose land was condemned pursuant to the Urban Renewal Project. Named as Defendants were the Board and its members, Darby Township and the Manager of Darby Township, the Delaware County Redevelopment Authority, and Maureen Healy. [2]
An Amended Complaint alleged that Appellants brought suit “as citizens and beneficiaries” of the Urban Renewal Plan and subsequent Redevelopment Agreement, because they were promisеd the benefits of residential redevelopment of the property. Despite the Redevelopment Agreement, however, Appellants alleged that “Darby Township, in order to perpetuate the white majority in the Township, continuously discouraged residential developments by various means, including without limitation, demanding that the developer construct an unnecessary bridge, refusing housing style modifications and informal discouragement.” (App., Vol. II, 000147a.) Appellants complained that the Delaware County Redevelopment Authority failed to enforce the terms of the Redevelopment Agreement. They accused the Appellees of conspiring to inhibit and prevent the residential redevelopment of the Property for the purpose of preventing the African- American population in Darby Township from expanding and gaining political control.
Count I of the Amended Complaint sought enforcement of the Redevelopment Agreement, by way of an injunction in order to prevent the use of the property for purposes other than *7 the residential use specified in the Urban Renewal Plan and Redevelopment Agreement. Count II аlleged a claim under 42 [3]
U.S.C. §1983 for violation of Appellants’ rights of equal protection, substantive and procedural due process, and protection of property. Count III alleged a claim under 42 U.S.C. §1981 for intentional racial discrimination by Appellees “preventing the growth of the community and introducing improper uses into the community to decrease property values and diminishing or curtailing the voting power of the community,” as well as “by denying them contracts which were required to protect and promote the [Appellant]s’ community [and] by limiting the [Appellant]s’ rights as parties bеfore the Board.” (App., Vol. II, 000154a.) Count IV alleged conspiracy under 42 U.S.C. §1985(3) and Count V alleged a violation of the Fair Housing Act. Count VI, which attacked the Board’s decision to grant the variance, was dismissed by Order of the district court dated September 22, 2004.
III.
In response to Appellees’ motions to dismiss brought pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6), the district court concluded that the Appellants lacked standing to bring the claims asserted, and dismissed the Amended Complaint.
Lee Taliaferro and Samuel Alexander, as members of the African-American community in Darby Township and neighboring property owners, alleged they were injured: (1) by the racially discriminatory policies of the Appellees in curtailing the voting and political power of the African-American community, because the Appellees allegedly made a land use decision granting a variance to allow the construction of an 800- unit self-storage facility instead of the promised residential redevelopment in order to limit the effect of the African- American vote in Darby Township; (2) in that their property values would be diminished and their neighborhood blighted by *8 the construction of an 800-unit self-storage facility; and (3) because African-Americans have been denied equal treatment under the law in government hearings and meetings in that, at a hearing before the case was remanded by the State court, Board members “discriminately, repeatedly shouted down the protestants who were African-Americans and threatened to expel them from the hearing,” (App., Vol. II, 000149a), allegedly based on racial bias. The district court dismissed Taliaferro’s and Alexander’s claims, and noted that these Appellants had not alleged what, if any, benefit they would receive if the Urban Renewal Plan were implemented. Thus, they neither alleged nor demonstrated that they, as individuals, suffered a concrete injury as a result of Appellees’ alleged actions that would be redressed by the relief sought in this action.
Beatrice Moore and Bernice Wilson were residents who were removed pursuant to the Urban Renewal Plan with the alleged promise of an opportunity to return. The district court dismissed their claims because they had not alleged they desired, or would be eligible, to move into residences that might have been constructed under the Urban Renewal Plan.
In summary, the lower court determined that Appellants
hаd not contended that they had been injured personally by
Appellees’ conduct. Accordingly, because none of the
Appellants would receive an actual benefit if the court granted
the requested injunction, it found that they lacked standing to
bring the Amended Complaint filed in this matter. See
Taliaferro v. Darby Twp. Zoning Bd., No. Civ. A. 03-3554,
*9 IV.
We have jurisdiction over this appeal from a final
judgment pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and exercise plenary
review over a district court's order dismissing a complaint for
lack of subject matter jurisdiction. See, e.g., In re Kaiser Group
Int’l Inc.
,
Similarly, our standard of review of a district court’s
dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) is
plenary. Evancho v. Fisher,
V. Article III of the Constitution restricts the “judicial power” of the United States to the resolution of cases and controversies. See Valley Forge Christian Coll. v. Ams. United for Separation of Church & State, Inc. , 454 U.S. 464, 471 (1982). Subsumed within this restriction is the requirement that *10 a litigant have standing to challеnge the action sought to be adjudicated in the lawsuit. Id. Standing has constitutional and prudential components, both of which must be satisfied before a litigant may seek redress in the federal courts. Id.; Wheeler v. Travelers Ins. Co. , 22 F.3d 534, 537 (3d Cir. 1994). Absent Article III standing, a federal court does not have subject matter jurisdiction to address a plaintiff’s claims, and they must be dismissed. Storino v. Borough of Point Pleasant Beach, 322 F.3d 293, 296 (3d Cir. 2003).
The three elements necessary to satisfy the irreducible constitutional minimum of standing are:
(1) the plaintiff must have suffered an injury in fact– an invasion of a legally protected interest which is (a) concrete and particularized, and (b) actual or imminent, not conjectural or hypothetical; (2) there must be a causal connection between the injury and the conduct complained of; and (3) it must be likely, as opposed to merely speculative, that the injury will be redressed by a favorable decision.
United States v. Hays
,
Thus, whether asserting first party standing or third party standing, a plaintiff must state an injury in fact. Storino, 322 F.3d at 295. In Storino, we found a challenge by landowners to a zoning ordinance that made the use of their property as a boarding home into a legal nonconforming use insufficient to confer first party standing. The landowners argued that they would be injured in the future when the nonconforming use was no longer accepted by the city, because they would have to apply *11 for a variance. Because the injury of future costs when applying for a variance was prospective and conjectural, we found that the landowners had not sufficiently alleged an injury in fact that was particularized, actual, or imminent. Id. at 298. Therefore, the landowners did not satisfy the constitutional requirements for first party standing. Id. In addition, we found that the landowners did not have third party standing to challenge the ordinance on equal protection grounds for decreasing the amount of low-to-moderate income housing available in the area. Because the landowners did not suffer an injury in fact themselves, they could not establish third party standing. Id. at 299. [4]
“[A] plaintiff who seeks to challenge exclusionary zoning
practices must allege specific, concrete facts demonstrating that
the challenged practices harm him, and that he personally would
benefit in a tangible way from the court’s intervention.” Warth
v. Seldin, 422 U.S. 490, 508 (1975). This Court has found
injury allegedly suffered by potential tenants of a low-income
housing project sufficient to confer standing to sue public
officials where the individuals already were public housing
tenants who would have suffered a particular injury if the
development was not built. Resident Advisory Bd. v. Rizzo,
Further, we have found that a claim that a building
project would increase traffic, pоllution, and noise in the area
residents’ neighborhood was sufficiently concrete and
particularized. Society Hill Towers Owners’ Assoc. v. Rendell,
*12
Id. at 176-77.
In addition to alleging actual and specific injury, plaintiffs must demonstrate a causal connection to a defendant’s alleged conduct. Warth, 422 U.S. at 493. In Warth, the Supreme Court found that low-to-moderate income residents lacked standing to assert that a neighboring town’s zoning *13 regulations and zoning board’s actions discouraged the construction of low-to-moderate income housing in that town. The Court determined that the inability of the individuals to reside in the neighboring town was a consequence of the economics of the area housing market, rather than of the zoning board’s acts. Id. at 506.
Finally, the injury alleged must be redressable by the
remedy sought. For example, in Rizzo, we found that granting
the relief sought would produce “at least a ‘substantial
probability’ that the [housing] project [would] materialize,
affording (plaintiffs) the housing opportunities (they) desire.”
VI.
In this case, accepting as true the material allegations of the Amended Complaint, Appellants have failed to allege an injury in fact that is concrete, particularized, or actual in order to confer standing upon them in regard to a denial of equal treatment as a result of the Appellees’ alleged conspiracy to block the construction of residential housing on the Property. Such a claim is generalized, and does not allege any actual injury to the Appellants. Thus, to the extent Taliaferro and [5]
Alexander have alleged that Appellees made land use decisions in order to limit the effect of the African-American vote in Darby Township, they have not asserted an actual injury that would confer constitutional standing upon them. That is, Appellants have not demonstrated that they, as individuals, have suffered a concrete loss as the result of Appellees’ actions, even if Appellees had acted to ensure that the Propеrty would not be used for low-to-moderate income residential housing.
To the extent Taliaferro and Alexander have alleged
*14
injuries to their property values and neighborhood arising from
the approval of the variance, however, we conclude that they
have alleged a constitutionally cognizable injury. This injury is
not conjectural; they contend that the construction of the storage
facility will lower their property values, reduce the aesthetics in
their community and create excess noise and traffic, including
heavy truck traffic on their residential streets. (App., Vol. II,
000140a-000161a.) As in Society Hill, these injuries are
sufficiently concrete and particularized. See also Sierra Club v.
Morton, 405 U.S. 727, 734 (1972) (“Aesthetic and
environmental well-being, like economic well-being, are
important ingredients of the quality of life in our society, and the
fact that . . . interests are shared by the many rather than the few
does not make them less deserving of legal protection through
the judicial process.”). Although we have some doubts about
the genuineness of their claim in light of their primary emphasis
on the effect of the storage facility on their political rights, we
cannot say that this injury is so frivolous as to deprive these
neighboring property ownеrs of standing. See Growth
Horizons, Inc. v. Delaware County, Pa.,
Taliaferro and Alexander also meet the causation and redressability prongs of Article III standing. The injury alleged would result directly from the construction of the proposed storage facility and would be redressed if the variance were denied. Therefore, the district court had jurisdiction to decide this claim of the neighboring property owners.
Beatrice Moore and Bernice Wilson were residents who
left the neighborhood in question pursuant to the urban renewal
project with the alleged promise of an opportunity to return.
They have not alleged, however, that they were ready, willing,
and able to move back to the area at this time, decades after
leaving in 1960. They also have not alleged that their land was
taken from them without compensation. (App., Vol. II,
000079a.) Therefore, Moore and Wilson have not suffered any
concrete injury; they have only an abstract interest in seeing the
Property developed. See Hous. Investors, Inc. v. City of
*15
Clanton,
Finally, Appellants seek to assert a claim as members of the African-American community allegedly injured by Appellees’ policies of curtailing the voting and political power of the African-American community. Essentially, they argue that they should have standing to assert that the African- American population is being minimized. But the remedy sought is an injunction prohibiting the land in question from being used for anything other than residential purposes. This would not redress Appellants’ complaints of the Appellees’ failure to implement the Urban Renewal Plan. This Court cannot direct the Appellees to implement the Urban Renewal Plan, even if it had not expired over twenty-five years ago. As the district court observed, an injunction preventing the storage units from being built does nothing to put into place *16 construction of housing that would draw only African-American residents.
VII.
Having determined that the district court has jurisdiction
to decide the claim of the neighboring property owners because
it meets the constitutional standing requirements under Article
III, we also find that abstention would be not be appropriate
under either Younger or Rooker-Feldman. In general, federal
intervention in ongoing state proceedings is precluded in
accordance with the abstention theory articulated in Younger v.
Harris,
Under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, a district court is
precluded from entertaining an action, that is, the federal court
lacks subject matter jurisdiction, if the relief requested
effectively would reverse a state court decision or void its
ruling. Whiteford v. Reed,
*17
In explaining the jurisdictional bar, this Court has
described the Rooker-Feldman doctrine as precluding lower
federal court jurisdiction over claims that were actually litigated
or those “inextricably intertwined” with adjudication by a state
court. Parkview Assoc. P’ship v. City of Lebanon, 225 F.3d
321, 325 (3d Cir. 2000) (citing Gulla v. North Strabane
Township,
The state courts reviewed, for abuse of discretion, the
Board determination that granting the variance would not alter
the essential character of the neighborhood nor be detrimental
to the public welfare. Throughout the state court process,
determinations rested on the decision that because Healy
satisfied the criteria necessary to obtain a zoning variance, the
Board’s findings were supported by substantial evidence. The
due process claims of Taliaferro and Alexander, that their
properties will be devalued in violation of their constitutional
rights, were not actually litigated in state court during the appeal
from the Board’s decision. Thus, the state courts did not
*18
consider the claims of potential damage to property values and
the neighborhood that would arise from approval of the
variance. Even though such claims could have been raised
during the appeal process, we find that they are not inextricably
intertwined with the appellate review of the Board’s decision.
Federal relief on the property value claims would not necessarily
require a finding that the state court judgments were erroneous.
Seе Desi’s Pizza, Inc. v. City of Wilkes-Barre,
VIII.
The Court is mindful that this case has presented a sensitive issue, with allegations of a policy of perpetuating a white majority in local government, and resultant racial tensions. We cannot allow those allegations to have us take on the “abstract questions of wide public significance,” however, especially those already addressed by governmental institutions competent to provide redress. Warth, 422 U.S. at 500 (recognizing that “standing in no way depends on the merits of the plaintiff’s contention that particular conduct is illegal”).
Thus, we reverse the district court’s dismissal of the Amended Complaint insofar as Taliaferro and Alexander have alleged that their property values will be damaged by the grant of the variance because such a claim meets the constitutional standing requirements under Article III and because abstention would be not be appropriate. In all other respects, the judgment of the district court is affirmed.
Notes
[1] The Honorable Joseph H. Rodriguez, United States District Court for the District of New Jersey, sitting by designation.
[2] The United States Department of Housing and Urban Development and two of its officials were originally named in the Cоmplaint but are no longer involved in the case.
[3] This count was dismissed as against Defendant Healy on September 22, 2004.
[4] Litigants may bring an action on behalf of third parties
only in limited circumstances, when: (1) the litigant has
suffered an injury in fact, giving him a sufficiently concrete
interest in the outcome of the issue; (2) the litigant has a close
relation to the third party; and (3) there exists some hindrance
to the third party’s ability to protect his own interest. Powers
v. Ohio,
[5] There is no indication in the record that any developer was injured by a zoning decision blocking construction efforts or took steps to appеal an adverse ruling.
[6] Further, any claim in the nature of a breach of contract regarding the condemnation of these Appellants’ land surely would be barred by the statute of limitations, rendering appropriate dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Moreover, any claim that there was a breach of the Redevelopment Agreement cannot be sustained because the Appellants were not parties to the contract and because the terms of the contract expired in 1980. Any argument that Darby Township discouraged residential development of the Property and the Redevelopment Authority acquiesced by failing to enforce the terms of the Redevelopment Agreement should have been raised long ago.