Opinion
Case No. 1:05-CV-00076 PGC.
August 23, 2005
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS
This matter is before the court on defendants' motion to dismiss plaintiffs' complaint for failure to state a cause of action. Plaintiffs Robert and Dena Dominguez filed this § 1983 action against defendants City of West Haven, Mayor Timothy R. Payment, the City Council for West Haven, and individual city council members (collectively the "City Defendants"). Plaintiffs allege that the City Defendants violated their procedural due process rights by providing inadequate notice of a certain City Council meeting, and for failing to allow plaintiffs a right to be heard. Specifically, plaintiffs allege a deprivation of due process with regard to their property rights and a proposed regulation change made by the City Council involving the land fill adjacent to plaintiffs' property (the "Landfill"). Because plaintiffs have failed to allege an actual deprivation of rights, the court grants the City Defendants' motion to dismiss.
BACKGROUND
According to the complaint, on May 28, 2005, plaintiffs received notice for a City Council meeting at which would be discussed a proposed ordinance change relating to a landfill near plaintiffs' property. The agenda received stated that "The City Council may take final action on any item listed on this agenda." On June 1, 2005, the City Defendants conducted the City Council meeting. During the meeting, Mayor Wayment and others offered arguments in favor of the ordinance. Plaintiffs' counsel requested an opportunity to speak against the change, but Mayor Wayment refused on grounds that the meeting was not a public hearing and that not public input would be taken. After plaintiff's counsel informed Mayor Wayment that Utah law requires a 14-day requirement for notice and that a public hearing be set before the council could take final action, Mayor Wayment, after briefly consulting his City Attorney, announced that the City Council would set a public hearing to take public input. The City Council deferred any vote on the matter and instead set a subsequent public hearing on June 15, 2005 — two weeks later. On June 15, 2005, plaintiffs and other were permitted to freely state their position. Additionally, that meeting was adjourned to allow all concerned to submit written materials to the City Council to be considered before taking final action.DISCUSSION
In their motion to dismiss, defendants contend that plaintiffs were not deprived of any rights and therefore have failed to state a cause of action under § 1983. Given that the plaintiffs are seeking relief for not being afforded the right to be noticed and heard regarding the ordinance change, and given the undisputed fact that on June 15, 2005, all interested parties were given an opportunity to speak in favor or against the ordinance before final action was taken, plaintiffs have not been deprived of any procedural due process rights. While the actions by Mayor Wayment and the City Council at the June 1, 2005, meeting were problematic, it is undisputed that final action on the ordinance change was never taken then. Instead, the City Defendants, with the help of the plaintiffs' counsel, recognized that the plaintiffs had a right to be heard and scheduled a public hearing where all interested parties, including the plaintiffs, would be given the chance to voice their opinions.
As for plaintiffs' claim that the City Defendants' motion should be denied because the City Defendants have implemented a "custom and policy" that has led to numerous constitutional violations, plaintiffs have misunderstood the role of a "custom and policy" argument within a § 1983 claim. As the City Defendants point out in their brief, a plaintiff can establish supervisory liability for a § 1983 claim against a municipality defendant by showing that the municipality exhibited a "custom and policy" endorsing or encouraging the unconstitutional behavior of its employees. In short, "custom and policy" does not establish a separate cause of action under § 1983, but is simply an element that must be satisfied to demonstrate supervisory liability of a municipality defendant. In this case, plaintiffs simply lack a cause of action.
CONCLUSION
Because the plaintiffs' have failed to assert a deprivation of rights, their § 1983 claim that the City Defendants violated their procedural due process rights must be dismissed. Therefore, defendants' motion is GRANTED. The clerk of the court is directed to close the case.