Court Opinion

ID: 2963405
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-09-21 21:09:15.008437+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:42:39.585474
License: Public Domain

USCA1 Opinion

	

   April 25, 1995           [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]                        UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                            FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT                             ____________________   No. 94-2177                       KENNETH E. BLEVENS, SR., ET AL.,                           Plaintiffs, Appellants,                                      v.                     TOWN OF BOW, NEW HAMPSHIRE, ET AL.,                            Defendants, Appellees.                             ____________________                 APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT                   FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE               [Hon. Shane Devine, Senior U.S. District Judge]
                                   __________________________                             ____________________                                    Before                            Torruella, Chief Judge,
                                       ___________                       Selya and Stahl, Circuit Judges.
                                        ______________                             ____________________     John E. Laboe and Laboe Associates on brief for appellants.
     _____________     ________________     Gary B. Richardson and Upton, Sanders & Smith on brief for appellees.
     __________________     ______________________                             ____________________                             ____________________

                 Per   Curiam.     Appellants   Kenneth   Blevens,   Sr.,
                 ____________            Christopher Blevens,  and  Kenneth Blevens,  Jr.  appeal  the            grant   of  appellees'   motion   for  summary   judgment  on            appellants' federal claims  and the dismissal  of appellants'            state  claims  without  prejudice.   Appellants  seek relief,            pursuant  to  42 U.S.C.    1983  and  state law,  for alleged            violations of  their rights arising out  actions by appellees            Town  of Bow,  members of  its planning  board, and  its town            planner.   We affirm essentially for the reasons given in the            district court order dated October 12, 1994.  We add only the            following.                 Even if  we assume arguendo that  appellees violated the
                                    ________            Blevens'  property  rights   by,  in  effect,   consolidating            historically  separate   lots   in  October   1991,   thereby            establishing a  violation of  their rights to  procedural due            process,  the  Blevenses  must  also show  that  they  lacked            adequate postdeprivation remedies for the alleged deprivation            of  their property rights.   See Licari v.  Ferruzzi, 22 F.3d
                                         ___ ______     ________            344, 347 (1st Cir. 1994) (no violation of right to procedural            due  process  where  adequate  postdeprivation  remedies  are            available).  In  the instant case, the  Blevenses failed even            to seek, pursuant to state law, relief from the town planning            board, the board of  adjustment, or the superior court.   See
                                                                      ___            N.H.  Rev.   Stat.  Ann.      676:4;      676:5;      677:15.            "[A]ppellants  cannot complain  of a violation  of procedural                                         -2-

            due process rights  when appellants have  made no attempt  to            avail  themselves  of  existing  state  procedures."   Boston
                                                                   ______            Environmental Sanitation Inspectors Asso. v. Boston, 794 F.2d
            ________________________________________     ______            12, 13 (1st Cir. 1986).                 The  judgment  of  the   district  court  is   summarily
                                                                _________            affirmed.  See 1st Cir. Loc. R. 27.1.
            ________  ____                                         -3-