Opinion ID: 171245
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Denial of Injunctive Relief (07-7100)

Text: We review the district court’s denial of injunctive relief for abuse of discretion. Mitchell v. City of Moore, Oklahoma, 218 F.3d 1190, 1198 (10th Cir. 2000). “Under this standard, we accept the district court’s factual findings unless they are clearly erroneous and review application of legal principals de novo.” Id. (quotation omitted). Choate’s preliminary injunction motion essentially sought to prevent the city from clearing his property of debris left from the fire and demolition. His arguments on appeal, as before the district court, are difficult to follow but he appears to argue primarily that any clean-up would destroy evidence and hinder his ability to calculate his damages for purposes of this lawsuit. After a hearing, the district court rejected these arguments for reasons that we summarized above. Having reviewed the record, we see no error in the district court’s factual findings or legal reasoning. We therefore affirm its denial of injunctive relief for substantially the same reasons set forth in the magistrate judge’s Report and Recommendation, dated September 4, 2007, which was affirmed and adopted by the district court on October 17. C. Dismissal of Lemmings, Baker, and Saxon (07-7099) The district court dismissed Choate’s claims against Lemmings, Baker, and Saxon under Rule 12(b)(6) because it held those defendants were entitled to qualified immunity. We review this decision de novo. Peterson v. Jensen, 371 F.3d 1199, 1202 (10th Cir. 2004). That the procedural posture of the -10- dismissal was under Rule 12 rather than Rule 56 is important because “[a]sserting a qualified immunity defense via a Rule 12(b)(6) motion . . . subjects the defendant to a more challenging standard of review than would apply on summary judgment.” Peterson, 371 F.3d at 1201. In Peterson, we explained that “[i]n reviewing a Rule 12(b)(6) motion in the context of qualified immunity, a district court should not dismiss a complaint for failure to state a claim unless it appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim which would entitle him to relief.” Id. (quotation omitted). The standard for a Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal has changed somewhat since Peterson, for we now ask whether the specific allegations in the complaint “plausibly support a legal claim for relief.” Alvarado v. KOB-TV, L.L.C., 493 F.3d 1210, 1215 n.2 (10th Cir. 2007) (emphasis added). Under either standard, however, we conclude that Choate’s complaint stated a § 1983 claim against Lemmings, and that the district court therefore erred in granting his motion to dismiss. For reasons explained below, we affirm the dismissals of Baker and Saxon. Choate alleged that Lemmings violated his due process rights by ordering the demolition of his building immediately after the fire without notice. Lemmings does not dispute taking this action. But he argued in his motion to dismiss that he is entitled to qualified immunity under a long-standing rule that sanctions the deprivation of property without due process in the case of an emergency. See Hodel, 452 U.S. at 299-300 (setting forth the emergency -11- situation exception to the normal pre-deprivation notice and hearing requirements). The district court agreed with Lemmings. At the beginning of its analysis, however, it recognized that Choate had asserted a constitutional violation: The underlying constitutional claim asserted by Plaintiff as the basis for his §§ 1983, 1985 claims is an alleged deprivation of his right to ‘use his property under the United States Constitution and its laws, without due process[.]’ Aplt. App., doc. 20 at 4 (quoting Compl. at 5). Nevertheless, the court went on to conclude that “[b]ecause clear precedent exists allowing the deprivation of property interests without a hearing in emergency situations, it is impossible to say that . . . Lemmings . . . [was] objectively unreasonable.” Id. at 5. We agree with the district court that under a certain set of facts Lemmings may have been justified in taking such summary action. As the Supreme Court remarked in Hodel, “deprivation of property to protect the public health and safety is one of the oldest examples of permissible summary action.” 452 U.S. at 300 (quotation omitted). The problem with the district court’s analysis is that it erroneously placed the burden on Choate to plead the absence of exigent circumstances, when the onus should have been on Lemmings to show the reasonableness of his belief that immediate demolition was necessary. See Gomez v. Toledo, 446 U.S. 635, 640 (1980) (“[T]his Court has never indicated that -12- qualified immunity is relevant to the existence of plaintiff’s cause of action; instead we have described it as a defense available to the official in question.”). The Supreme Court made clear in Gomez that there is no basis for imposing on a § 1983 plaintiff the obligation to anticipate and plead around the qualified immunity defense. See id. More recently, in the wake of Crawford-El v. Britton, 523 U.S. 574 (1998), this court specifically rejected a heightened pleading standard for civil rights plaintiffs facing the immunity defense. See Currier v. Doran, 242 F.3d 905, 916-917 (10th Cir. 2001). A § 1983 complaint needs but two allegations to state a cause of action: (1) that the plaintiff was deprived of a federal right; and (2) that the person who deprived him acted under color of state law. Gomez, 446 U.S. at 640. Moreover, these allegations need not be pled with specificity. All that is required are “sufficient facts, that when taken as true, provide plausible grounds that discovery will reveal evidence to support plaintiff’s allegations.” Gann v. Cline, 519 F.3d 1090, 1092 (10th Cir. 2008) (quotations omitted). The district court must accept all well-pleaded allegations as true and view them in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. See id. Viewed under these standards, Choate’s complaint stated a § 1983 claim against Lemmings. He alleged that after the fire, his building was still standing and that “without notice to [him] . . . but for alleged safety concerns, Lemmings immediately procured its demolition . . . even of the parts not substantially -13- damaged by fire.” Aplt. App., doc. 1 at 4. He also alleged that Lemmings “represented to [him] and others concerned that [he] was acting under color of law.” Id. at 5. Crediting these allegations as true, and affording the complaint “the solicitous construction due a pro se filing,” Dudnikov v. Chalk & Vermilion Fine Arts, Inc., 514 F.3d 1063, 1073 (10th Cir. 2008), we can infer from these allegations that Lemmings, acting under color of law, ordered Choate’s building to be demolished without notice or a hearing. We can even infer that he did so despite the lack of exigent circumstances, though we reiterate that the pleading rules did not require Choate to anticipate the immunity defense. Crawford-El, 523 U.S. at 595. It is clear from the district court’s albeit short analysis that it rejected Choate’s § 1983 claim against Lemmings because the complaint did not plead the absence of the “emergency situation” exception set forth in Hodel. Because Choate was not required to do so, we reverse the district court’s November 8, 2007, order with respect to defendant Lemmings. Turning to Baker and Saxon, the district court held that those defendants were also entitled to qualified immunity with respect to their roles in the demolition of Choate’s building and subsequent abatement order. We need not delve into the qualified immunity analysis here, however, because we conclude that the complaint failed to state a claim as to these defendants. See Mann v. Boatright, 477 F.3d 1140, 1145 (10th Cir. 2007) (noting our authority to affirm a dismissal on any legal ground supported by the record). As we noted earlier, a -14- § 1983 plaintiff must allege facts that could plausibly support the claimed violation of a federal right. With respect to Baker and Saxon, Choate’s complaint fails miserably. His minimal allegations against Saxon amount to nothing more than a charge that Saxon used the administrative process in an attempt to clear the property of debris. And aside from an incomprehensible paragraph concerning an alleged delay on the part of the fire department, the complaint does not even mention Baker. Thus, we conclude as a matter of law that the complaint failed to state a claim as to these defendants, and the district court properly dismissed the claims against them pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6). We reach the same conclusion with respect to defendant Doner. Choate’s bare allegation that he was the individual who physically demolished the building is simply not sufficient to state a § 1983 claim. 6 D. Dismissals of DeGraffenreid and OCE (08-7010) Finally, we address the dismissals of Angela DeGraffenreid and the Office of Code Enforcement. As we summarized above, the district court dismissed 6 Choate’s claim against Doner is not helped by his confusing allegation that Defendant Doner knew or should have known of the ordinary and customary practices of his trade as would protect private property rights, which duties and safeguards he flagrantly ignored or failed to employ when he undertook demolition work without validating questionable representations. Aplt. App., doc. 1 at 6, -15- DeGraffenreid after concluding that Choate failed to allege state action on her part. It dismissed OCE because it found that Choate’s allegations targeted only individuals, and the Supreme Court has held that a municipality cannot be liable under § 1983 on a respondeat superior theory for merely employing a tortfeasor. Monell, 436 U.S. at 691. Upon de novo review, we find no error in its orders dismissing these defendants under Rule 12(b)(6). We therefore affirm the district court’s grant of DeGraffenreid’s and OCE’s motions to dismiss for substantially the same reasons stated in its January 14, 2008, orders.