To build a shed and a single family residence on his property, Plaintiff sought easement rights to access the parcel with a motor vehicle. Defendants, Bond and Bootey live near the Plaintiff’s land and, along with the Village, opposed the application. The Village ultimately refused to issue zoning permits, imposed restrictions because the parcel was considered a “corner lot”, and refused to grant the easement.
Plaintiff built the shed anyway and subsequently commenced litigation in the state courts. The state courts resolved three separate issues: that Plaintiff’s property is not a corner lot and, therefore is not subject to extra restrictions; affirmed the Village’s easement denial; and declared that the Plaintiff’s construction of the shed impedes the rights of Bond and Bootey.
After this decision was rendered by the state court, Plaintiff filed this case in the federal court alleging violations of the Fourteenth Amendment for differential treatment in allowing other property owners to build; asking the court to revisit denial of the easement from the state court; alleging a constitutional challenge to the Village code; accusing the village of retaliation for exercising First Amendment rights; claiming sewer trespass by the village; and claims for various injunctions to remove structures on Bond and Bootey’s land.
The court began by dealing with the application of the Rooker-Feldman doctrine which prohibits cases brought to the federal courts by those who lost their case at the state level and are seeking rejection of the state court’s holdings. The court found that the first three claims asserted by the Plaintiff in this federal action resemble the claims decided by the state court. Even if the Rooker-Feldman doctrine did not apply, the court points out, alternatively, the actions would be barred under the doctrine of res judicata because the claims either were or should have been raised at the state court.
Regarding the alleged First Amendment violation, the Court found that the Plaintiff had not pled any information to satisfy its claim. The court deduced that plaintiff was arguing that because of his victory in the corner-lot issue, actions by the village were in retaliation. The court found that Plaintiff merely reiterated his issues from the state courts and that the Village had simply taken a position against the issues presented by Plaintiff. The Plaintiff did, said the court, have two allegations that may be re-pleaded: allegations that the village posted an advertisement criticizing plaintiffs and that an amendment to the Code was meant to target the Plaintiff.
Since this court dismissed all the federal claims brought by the Plaintiff, they decline to extend supplemental jurisdiction to any remaining state law claims but allowed plaintiff to reassert them at the state court.
Turner v. Village of Lakewood, 2011 WL 4899965 (W.D.N.Y. 10/14/2011).
The opinion can accessed at: http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=11665571315498801366&q=turner+v.+village+of+lakewood&hl=en&as_sdt=2,33
