2009 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit 1-16-2009 

# D ot zel v . Ashbridge P r e c e de nt i al or N on-P r e c e de nt i al : N on-P r e c e de nt i al D ocke t N o . 07-4612

F o llow thi s and a dd it ion al work s at : http://d i git alc ommon s .l a w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2009

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou ght t o you for f r e e and ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit at V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. It h as be e n a c c ept e d for inclusion in 2009 D e c i sion s b y an author i z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. F or mor e inform at ion, p le as e c ont a ct Be n j amin . C arl s on@l a

w . vi ll anova . e du . Re c omme nde d C it at ion " D otz e l v . Ashbrid g e " (2009). 2009 D e cisio n s . P ape r 2018. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2009/2018H on. L oui s H . Pol l ak, Seni or J udge, U ni t ed St at es D i s t r i ct * C our tfort he East ern D i s t ri ctof Penns y l vani a, s i t t i ng by des i gnat i on. NOT P RE CE DE NT I AL

UN I TED STATES CO UR T OF A PP EALS F O R T H E T H IR D C IR C U IT

N o. 07- 4612 NORBERT J . DOTZE L, J R. d/b/ a D ot zel T rucki ng; J OA NN E DO TZEL, d/b/ a D ot zel T rucki ng, A p p e llan ts

v. E RN E S T AS HB RI DGE ; J OHN R . BO WER ; DAR RE N C RI S P I N;

S A L E M T O W N S H IP O n A p p ea l from the U n it ed S tat es D istri ct C o u rt f o r th e M id d le D istric t o f P e n n sy lv a n ia ( D . C . C i vi l N o. 03- cv- 01418) D i s t r i ctJ udge: H on. J ames M . M unl ey Subm i t t ed U nderT hi r d C i r cui tL A R 34. 1( a)

J anuary12, 2009 B efore: S L O V ITE R and B A R R Y , C i rcui tJudg es,

and PO L L A K , D i s t r i ctJ udge * ( Fi l ed J anuary16, 2009)2 OP I NI ON

SL O V I T E R , C i r cui tJ udge. I n thi s zoni ng di s put e, pl ai nt i ffs N orber tand J oanne D ot zel appea l the D i s t r i ct C o u rt’s d ism iss a l o f

th e ir F irst A m e n d m e n t cla im a n d g ra n t o f su m m a ryju d g m e n t in favorof Sal em T ow ns hi p and thr ee mem ber s of the Tow ns hi p B oar d of Supervi s or s on th e i rs u b s t a n t i v e d u e p r o c e s s c l a i m. I . Backg r ound D ot zel pur chas ed a thi r t y - fouracr e par cel i n t he Tow ns hi p forthe purpos e of o p era ti n g a q u arry ors oi l r emoval pr oj ecton t he pr oper t y . “Ext r act i on, exca vat i on and/ or re m o v a l o f

n a tu ra l re so u rc e s” re q u ire s a c o n d iti o n a l u se p e rm it u n d e r th e T o w n sh ip Z on i ng O rdi nan ce, A pp . at46 a, and D otzel fi l ed a p et i t i on seeki ng such a c on dit i on al use p e rm it. T h e T o w n sh ip P lan n in g C o m m iss io n re v iew e d D o tze l’s a p p lica tio n a t a p u b lic m e e tin g a n d a p p ro v e d th e c o n d itio n a l u s e p e rm it s u b je c t to th re e lim ite d e x c e p tio n s . H ow ever , aft era publ i c hea r i ng on D ot zel ’ s appl i cat i on, the B oar d of Supervi s or s vot ed t o denycondi t i onal us e appr oval and i s s ued i t s w r i t t en dec i s i on. T he B oar d found that th e tes tim o n ya n d e v id e n c e D o tze l p re se n ted a t th e h e a rin g d id n o t m e e t th e re q u ire m e n ts of the gene r al s t andar ds pr ovi s i on, Sect i on 604 of the Tow ns hi p Z oni ng O r di nance , w hi ch i s us ed i n r evi ew of condi t i onal us e appl i cat i ons . I n appl y i ng the gene r al sta n d a rd s, th e B o a rd c o n c lu d e d th a t th e u se w o u ld “ jeo p a rd ize th e c o m m u n ityO n appea l , t hi s cour tr ever s ed t he D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s deni al 1 o f th e m o tio n to d ism iss th e c laim s ag a in st th e B o a rd m e m b e rs in th e ir in d iv id u a l ca p a c iti e s, h o ld in g th a t th e y w e re a c tin g in a q u a siju d icia l c a p a c itya n d th u s w e re a b so lu telyim m u n e f ro m su it i n t hei ri ndi vi dual capa ci t i es . D ot zel v. A s hbr i dge, 438 F. 3d 320, 327 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 6 ). 3 devel opm entobj ect i ves of the or di nance ; ” the s t r eet s w er e i nadequa t e forthe hea vy trucks ; i tw as notharm oni ous w i t h the r es i dent i al nei ghborhood; D ot zel di d not

“ a d e q u a telya d d re ss th e e f f e c t . . . o n th e d e v e lo p m e n t an d v a lu e o f a d jac e n t p ro p e rty ;” and D ot zel fai l ed t o pr ove thati tw oul d “notbe more obj ect i onabl e i n t erm s of noi s e, fum es , and vi br at i on t han w oul d t he oper at i ons of anyperm i t t ed us e. . . . ” A pp. at43a44a. D ot zel appea l ed thi s deci s i on t o t he Luzerne C ount yC our tof C om m on Pl eas , w hi ch s us t ai ned D ot zel ’ s appea l and r ever s ed the B oar d’ s deci s i on. D o tzel th en fil ed this co m p lai n t aga inst th e T o w n sh ip an d the B o ard m em b ers pur s uantt o 42 U . S. C . § 1983, al l egi ng thatthe deni al of hi s condi t i onal us e appl i cat i on v io late d h is F o u rte e n th A m e n d m e n t su b sta n tiv e a n d p ro c e d u ra l d u e p ro c e ss rig h ts a s w e ll as hi s Fi r s tA m endmentr i ght s . T he D i s t r i ctC our tdi s m i s s ed D ot zel ’ s pr ocedur al due process and F i rs tA m end m ent cl ai m s. T hereaft er, the C ou rtgrant ed the defen dan t s’ 1 m ot i on fors um m aryj udgm enton D ot zel ’ s r emai ni ng cl ai m forthe s ubs t ant i ve due process vi olat i on . T he C ou rtfou nd that al t ho ug h D otzel had a prope rtyi nter estbecau se he w oul d have obt ai ned the perm i tbutforthe al l egedl yi m pr operact i ons of the B oar d, there w as n o ev iden ce that the B o ard m em b ers’ ac ti o n s in d en y ing the p erm itw ere4

“ c o n s c ie n c e -s h o c k in g .”

I I . D i s cus s i on O urr evi ew overa D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s gr antof both s um m aryj udgm entand a mot i on to d ism iss i s p lena ry . S ee E iche n laub v . T o w n sh ip o f In d iana , 3 8 5 F . 3 d 2 7 4 , 2 7 9 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 4 ); M o rse v . L o w er M erion S ch . D ist . , 1 3 2 F . 3 d 9 0 2 , 9 0 6 (3d C ir . 1 9 9 7 ). S u m m ary ju d g m e n t is p ro p e r if

th e m o v in g p a rtyd e m o n stra tes “ th a t th e re is n o g e n u in e iss u e a s to a n yma t e r i a l f

a c ta n d t h a tt h e mo v a n ti s e n t i t l e d t o j u d g me n ta s a ma t t e ro f l a w. ” F e d . R. C i v. P. 56( c) ; E i chenl aub, 385 F. 3d at279. W hen cons i der i ng a R ul e 12( b) ( 6) m ot i on, w e must“ac ceptas t rue al l al l egat i ons i n t he compl ai ntand al l r eas onabl e i nfer ence s t hat c a n b e d ra w n th e re f

ro m , a n d v ie w th e m in th e lig h t m o s t f a v o ra b le to th e p la in tif

f.” M or s e, 132 F. 3d at906. “A R ul e 12( b) ( 6) m ot i on s houl d be gr ant ed i f i tappea r s t o a cert ai ntythatno r el i ef c oul d be gr ant ed underanys etof fa ct s w hi ch coul d be pr oved. ” Id. (i n terna l qu o tat ion s o m itted). A . S u b st an ti ve D u e P rocess D otzel argues t hat the D i stri ctC ou rterr ed in fi nd i ng that the B oard m em bers’ conducti n deny i ng t he condi t i onal us e perm i tdi d not“s hock the cons ci ence ” as a mat t er of l aw . W e ut i l i ze the “s hocks t he cons ci ence ” t es ts etfor t h i n C ount yof Sacr ament o v. L ew i s , 523 U . S. 833 ( 1998) , t o det erm i ne w hetherl and- us e dec i s i ons vi ol at e s ubs t ant i ve due pr oces s . U ni t ed A r t i s t s T heatr e C i r cui t , I nc. v. T ow ns hi p of W arr i ngt on, 316 F. 3d5

392, 401 ( 3d C i r . 2003) . I n fi ndi ng t hatL ew i s s uper s eded ourpr i ordeci s i ons us i ng an “im p rop er m o ti v e” stan d ard , w e e x p lai n ed that the “ sh o ck s the co n scien ce ” test i s a m o re d em an d ing stan d ard in tha t i t “en co m p asse s ‘on lythe m o st eg reg iou s o ff ici al co n d u ct. ’” U n it ed A rt ist s, 3 1 6 F . 3 d at 40 0 (qu o ti n g L ew is, 5 2 3 U . S . at 84 6 ). I n the l and- us e cont ext , t he “s hocks the cons ci ence ” t es t“pr event s us fr om bei ng cas ti n the r ol e of a ‘ zoni ng boar d of appe al s . ’ ” I d. at402 ( quot i ng C r eat i ve E nvi r onm ent s , I nc. v. E s t abr ook, 680 F. 2d 822, 833 ( 1s tC i r . 1982) ) . W e have r ecogni zed that“eve ryappea l bya di s appoi nt ed deve l operfr om an adve r s e rul i ng of the l ocal planni ng bo ard i nv olves s om e cl ai m of ab use of l egal autho ri t y , ” bu t“[l ]and-use d e c isio n s a re m a tters o f lo c a l co n c e rn , an d su c h d isp u tes sh o u ld n o t b e tra n sf o rm e d in to s ubs t ant i ve due pr oces s cl ai m s bas ed onl yon al l egat i ons thatgovernm entoffi ci al s act ed w i th ‘ i m pr oper ’ m ot i ves . ” U ni t ed A r t i s t s , 316 F. 3d at402. I n E i chenl aub, w e contr as t ed the type of e gr egi ous offi ci al m i s conducti n a l and- us e dec i s i on thatcoul d “s hock the cons ci ence ” w i t h m i s conductt hat“does notr i s e s uffi ci ent l yabove thatati s s ue i n a n o r ma l z o n i n g d i s p u t e t o p a s s t h e ‘ s h o c k s th e c o n s c i e n c e t e s t . ’ ” 3 8 5 F. 3 d a t2 8 6 . To “shock the co nsci ence,” the all eged m i scond uct m usti nv olve “m ore than j ust di s agr eementaboutconvent i onal zoni ng orpl anni ng rul es ” and r i s e t o t he l evel of s el fd e a lin g , an u n c o n stitu tio n a l “ta k in g ,” o r in ter f e re n c e w ith o th e rw ise c o n stitu tio n a lly pr ot ect ed ac t i vi t yon t he pr oper t y . I d. at285- 86. T he B oard m em bers’ al l eged m i scond uct i n d eny i ng D otzel ’s con dit i on al use6

p e rm it i n v o lv e s th e typ e o f c o m p lain ts th a t ro u tin e lya rise in lan d -u se d isp u tes a n d is i ns uffi ci entt o “s hock the cons ci ence . ” The Super vi s or s t es t i fi ed as t o t hei rr eas ons for the vot es . Super vi s orE r nes tA s hbr i dge ci t ed D ot zel ’ s fai l ur e t o m eetthe fi ve s t andar ds r equi r ed fora var i ance ; C hai r m an D arr en C r i s pi n ci t ed the i m pactof the oper at i on on the r oads , and Supervi s orJ ohn B ow erci t ed hi s conce r ns aboutthe ef fec tof noi s e and dus ton lo c a l re sid e n ts a n d th e ir c o m p lain ts. D o tze l alle g e s th a t th e S u p e rv iso rs im p ro p e rly appl i ed the zoni ng or di nance s and cr i t er i a forgr ant i ng a condi t i onal us e perm i t . D ot zel a rg u e s th a t S u p e rv iso r A sh b rid g e re lied o n in a p p lica b le s tan d a rd s d e sp ite th e T o w n sh ip att o rne y ’s ad v ice tha t th eyd id n o t app ly . D o tzel arg u es th at S u p erv isor B o w er’s depos i t i on t es t i m onyt hat“I vot ed myheart , ” bas ed on conc erns aboutthe i m pactof the pr oj ecton nei ghbor s , and Supervi s orC r i s pi n’ s s t at ed conc erns aboutr oad condi t i ons and r educe d pr opert yval ues w er e notval i d cr i t er i a orbas ed on evi dence fr om an e n v iro n m e n tal im p a c t re p o rt. D o tze l als o a rg u e s th a t th e T o w n sh ip w a s a ttem p tin g to reg u lat e h is plan n ed q u arry , w h ich is p ree m p ted b ystat e law . T h ese arg u m en ts are m ere di s agr eement s aboutt he zoni ng rul es and do not“s hock the cons ci ence . ” See Ei chenl aub, 385 F. 3d at285. T her e i s no evi dence t hatt he s upervi s or s ’ conducti nvol ved s el f- deal i ng or interfe red w ith co n sti tuti o n all yp rotec ted a cti v ity . D o tzel all eg es th at S u p erv isor B o w er’s s t at ementt hat“I vot ed myheart ” betr ay s i m pr operm ot i ve, beca us e hi s br otherobt ai ns m a ter ials f

ro m a q u a rryo n th e a d

jac e n t p ro p e rtyth a t w o u ld b e in c o m p e tit io n w ith7

D o tze l’s. T h is a rg u m e n t, w h ich c o u ld b e c o n stru e d a s a n a c c u sa tio n o f se lf -d e a lin g , is ent i r el yuns uppor t ed. D ot zel ’ s br otherdoes notactual l yoper at e a pot ent i al l ycompet i ng quarryon t he adj ace ntpr oper t y . R ather , he obt ai ns cons t ruct i on m at er i al s fr om the quarry . T he pr opert yow nerhas no obj ect i on t o D ot zel ’ s pl ans . T her e i s no evi dence t hat B o w er v o ted to d en ythe p erm itin o rde r t o b en ef ith is bro ther a n d , as th e D istri ct C o u rt p o inted o u t, if th e d ec isi o n w ere to h av e a n yef fe ct on h is bro ther, a co m p eti n g q u arry w oul d be more l i kel yt o benef i tr atherthan harm hi s i nt er es t s . A l t hough D ot zel ’ s appea l o f th e B o a rd ’s d e c isio n w a s s u sta in e d in sta te c o u rt, th a t o rd e r c o n tain e d n o f in d in g a s to a n yp a rticu lar e rro r b yth e B o a rd m e m b e rs a n d it d o e s n o t su p p lya b a sis f o r tu rn in g th is s t at e l aw di s put e i nt o a cons t i tut i onal cl ai m . I n s um , D ot zel ’ s al l egat i ons ar e i ns uffi ci ent t o r ai s e a ge nui ne i s s ue of mat er i al fac tas t o w hetherthe Supervi s or s ’ conduct“s hocked th e c o n s c ie n c e .” B. Fi r s t A m e ndm e nt D ot zel has as s er t ed a c l ai m forvi ol at i on of hi s Fi r s tA m endmentfr eedom of as s oci at i on r i ght s . D ot zel ar gues t hathi s perm i tw as deni ed i n r et al i at i on forhi s nona ss o c iatio n w ith S u p e rv iso r B o w e r’s b ro th e r w h o o p e ra tes a q u a rryth a t w o u ld b e in compet i t i on w i t h D ot zel ’ s pr opos ed quarr y . A s w e not ed above , B ow er ’ s br otherdoes notoper at e a qua r r y . M or eover , D ot zel ’ s Fi r s tA m endmentr et al i at i on cl ai m i s w i t hout m er i t . T he Fi r s tA m endmentpr ot ect s onl ythe r i ghtt o as s oci at e forthe purpos e of e n g a g in g in a c tiv iti e s p ro tec ted b yth e F irst A m e n d m e n t – sp e e c h , as se m b ly , the rig h t to8

pet i t i on, and fr ee e xer ci s e of r el i gi on. R ober t s v. U ni t ed St at es J ay cee s , 468 U . S. 609, 6 1 8 (19 8 4 ). D ot zel has notas s ert ed thathi s choi ce nott o as s oci at e w i t h B ow er ’ s br otheri s connec t ed to a n ye x p re ss iv e a c tiv ityth a t th e F irst A m e n d m e n t p ro tec ts. D o tze l h a s th u s f a iled to s t at e a Fi r s tA m endmentcl ai m beca us e he ha s notengage d i n pr ot ect ed “e xpr es s i ve as s oci at i on. ” See Pi L ambda Phi Fr at erni t y , I nc. v. U ni ver s i t yof Pi t t s bur gh, 229 F. 3d 4 3 5 , 4 4 2 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 0 ). I I I . C oncl usi on F o r th e re a so n s s e t f

o rth , w e w ill a f

f irm th e ju d g m e n t o f

th e D istric t C o u rt.