Posted by: Patricia Salkin | January 18, 2009

District Court Dismisses Complaint Over Denial of Residential Windmill for Failure to State a Claim Upon Which Relief Can be Granted

Following the denial of a building permit in 2005 to enable him to build and operate a residential windmill, the Plaintiff filed a federal lawsuit pro se, alleging that the Town, the building inspector and the zoning board of appeals violated his civil rights.  Specifically, the Plaintiff alleged they denied him of his due process rights, they violated equal protection, and they threatened retribution for the Plaintiff seeking remedy.  The federal district court concluded that since the Plaintiff only alleged that the building inspector made a decision denying the Plaintiff’s permit application and that the Plaintiff did not agree with the denial, this alone did not implicate and constitutional or statutory provisions. The Court said that a mere conclusory allegation without more fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. All the Plaintiff did here was list constitutional provisions in his complaint without any factual support. Further, the Court noted that the Plaintiff has not alleged involvement of the Town or the zoning board of appeals, only the building inspector. Since the Plaintiff filed the action pro se, the Court gave him until the end of the month to file an amended complaint that includes specific detail and exhibits. Stay tuned.

 

Christian v. Town of Riga, 2008 WL 63049 (W.D.N.Y. 1/6/2009).


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

Categories

%d bloggers like this: