Sant v. Stephens

Background

Dennis and Kathleen Sant alleged that Willis Stephens, the Town Attorney and Town Prosecutor for the Town of Southeast, and the Town violated their rights in connection with the use of their property, zoning and building issues, and the prosecution of building-code violations. The Amended Complaint asserted claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a federal civil-rights statute; 42 U.S.C. § 1985, a federal conspiracy statute; and the Town’s Ethics Code. The federal claims included First Amendment retaliation, Fourteenth Amendment due process and equal protection, emotional harm, and conspiracy. The Sants withdrew claims under the Fifth Amendment and 42 U.S.C. § 1982.

Federal Claims

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 legally plausible claim. The court ruled that claims under §§ 1983 and 1985 generally have a three-year limitations period. Because the Amended Complaint was filed on October 29, 2018, claims based on events before October 29, 2015 were untimely.

The court concluded that all of the cognizable events alleged in the Amended Complaint occurred outside that period. These events included the Town’s challenge to the Sants’ property use in 2008, alleged actions affecting their children’s Town-related positions in 2011, and the filing of a building-code complaint in 2013. The court rejected the Sants’ arguments for equitable tolling, which can extend a filing deadline in rare circumstances, and their argument that the alleged conduct was a continuing violation. The court also noted additional problems with some federal theories, including the lack of a clearly established property entitlement for the due-process theory, the failure to identify similarly situated comparators for selective-enforcement equal protection, and the absence of a viable underlying constitutional violation for the conspiracy claims.

State-Law Claims and Leave to Amend

The Sants also asserted two claims under the Town’s Ethics Code and may have intended to assert a state-law claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress. After dismissing all claims within its original federal jurisdiction, the court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction, meaning jurisdiction over related state-law claims, and dismissed those state-law claims without prejudice.

The court declined to grant leave to amend. The Sants had already amended once after receiving notice of the defendants’ anticipated arguments and participating in a pre-motion conference. They did not request another amendment or identify facts that would cure the defects. The court stated that the problems with the claims were substantive and could not be fixed through better pleading.

Disposition

Judge Cathy Seibel granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss. The federal claims, identified in the order as claims one through sixteen, were dismissed with prejudice. The state-law claims, identified as claims seventeen and eighteen and claim nine to the extent it was intended as a state-law claim, were dismissed without prejudice. The court directed the Clerk to enter judgment for the defendants and close the case.