Perry v. Village of Hillburn

Background

Dwaine Perry alleged that he is disabled, has limited mobility, and is a decorated Vietnam War veteran. He alleged that he and his family had parked for more than a century on a vacant municipal lot across from his home. According to the complaint, the Village installed no-parking signs there in March 2022 and placed five boulders around the lot in September 2022, preventing access during a snow emergency.

Perry also alleged that he spoke at a Village Board meeting in October 2021 against a proposed zoning amendment. He claimed that the restrictions on the parking lot were retaliation for that speech and that the defendants harassed, intimidated, and discriminated against him. He asserted claims under Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act, Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, and 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for alleged First Amendment and Fifth Amendment violations.

Legal standard

The defendants moved to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which tests whether a complaint alleges enough facts to state a plausible legal claim. At this stage, the court generally accepts well-supported factual allegations as true but does not accept legal conclusions stated as facts.

Disability claims

The court dismissed Perry’s ADA and Rehabilitation Act claims without prejudice. It explained that a plaintiff must plausibly allege that he has a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more major life activities. The court found that Perry’s statements that he was “disabled,” “handicapped,” and had “limited mobility,” along with his assertion that losing parking would threaten his health and safety, did not adequately describe an impairment or its effect on a major life activity.

First Amendment retaliation claim

The court dismissed Perry’s Section 1983 First Amendment retaliation claim without prejudice. It accepted that opposing the proposed zoning changes involved protected speech. But it found that Perry offered only conclusory allegations that the defendants acted because of his speech.

The court also considered Village Board minutes from 2017, which indicated that the Village had considered blocking parking at the lot before Perry’s 2021 speech. The minutes attributed the proposed restriction to disputes among residents. The court noted that the restriction applied to all neighbors, not only Perry, and that the no-parking signs and boulders were installed months after his speech. Based on those circumstances, the court found that the complaint did not plausibly allege that the defendants’ actions were substantially motivated by Perry’s protected speech.

Fifth Amendment takings claim

The court dismissed Perry’s Section 1983 Fifth Amendment Takings Clause claim without prejudice. A takings claim requires a protected property interest, a government deprivation of that interest for public use, and a lack of just compensation.

The court found that the Village, not Perry, owned the parking lot. It relied on a 1937 deed and took judicial notice of that recorded document. The court rejected Perry’s theories that he had acquired a possessory interest through a prescriptive easement or had a vested right based on a nonconforming use. It explained that the dispute did not involve a zoning ordinance prohibiting a previously lawful use; instead, the Village, as the property owner, stopped allowing residents to use the lot because of continuing disputes among neighbors.

Disposition

The court granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss without prejudice as to Perry’s ADA claim, Rehabilitation Act claim, Section 1983 First Amendment claim, and Section 1983 Fifth Amendment claim. Perry was granted leave to file a First Amended Complaint by January 17, 2025. The court stated that the amended complaint would replace, rather than supplement, the original complaint. If Perry did not file it by the deadline, the claims dismissed without prejudice would be deemed dismissed with prejudice.