Opinion
Civil Action No. 01-10635-RWZ
June 8, 2001
MEMORANDUM OF DECISION
Plaintiff, a resident of the Town of Chelmsford, complains that the Town has taken a portion of his property, apparently to build a new utility station. After reciting a series of incidents of harassment of plaintiff and members of his family by various officials and agencies of the Town, plaintiff alleges that the taking of his land was not done "for the public interest," and that "[e]ven the damage payment was blatantly low." He explains at some length why the siting of the utility station on his land is bad and what more suitable places exist within the Town. Finally, he asserts that the taking of his property "is only for the intent of doing harm to me." He brought this action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 to recover damages for the Town's violations of his rights under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution.
Defendant has moved to dismiss under Mass.R.Civ.P. Rule 12(b)(1) [sic] on the ground that the complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. It argues that despite plaintiff's invocation of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments, the claim is in fact based on a taking of property by eminent domain, and plaintiff cannot maintain it in federal court without first availing himself of the state law remedies available to him. See Marietta Realty, Inc. v. Springfield Redevelopment Auth., 902 F. Supp. 310, 313 (D.Mass. 1995) ("The nature of the constitutional right requires that a property owner utilize procedures for obtaining compensation before bringing a § 1983 action."). Chapter 79 of the Massachusetts General Laws does provide a comprehensive scheme for challenging both the validity of any taking and the adequacy of any compensation for the land taken. See id. ("Where a claimant seeks a post-deprivation remedy and the laws of that state provide an adequate one, the plaintiff cannot bring a § 1983 action without first exhausting the laws of the state" and "Massachusetts offers a remedy and that remedy has been found to be adequate.") (citation omitted); Raimondo v. Town of Burlington, 366 Mass. 450, 450-52 (Mass. 1974) (Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 79 allows landowner to challenge validity of taking simultaneously with a petition for assessment of damages); Whitehouse v. Town of Sherborn, 11 Mass. App. Ct. 668 (1981) (discussing remedies under Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 79). Since plaintiff admittedly has not made use of the state remedies, the motion to dismiss is allowed under Rule 12 (b)(6), Fed.R. Civ P.
Because plaintiff did not provide the dates of the alleged taking, it is not clear whether his claim is within the statute of limitations for invoking state remedies under Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 79. Even if the statute of limitations has run, however, plaintiff cannot resurrect his cause of action by coming straight to federal court. See Whitehouse, 11 Mass. App. Ct. at 297 ("There is no doubt that by enacting c. 79, the Legislature meant to fashion an exclusive statutory remedy for takings made thereunder . . ., nor any doubt that the limitations periods expressed therein were designed to limit the right as well as the remedy.")
Plaintiff moves for a preliminary injunction prohibiting certain sewer work that might be impacted by this case until the case has been heard and decided. Given the disposition of defendant's motion to dismiss, the motion for an injunction is moot.
Judgment may be entered dismissing the complaint.