Preserve French Creek, Inc. v. Corbin Herman, Unknown Officials of City of Custer, South Dakota, City of Custer, South Dakota, Hunter Roberts, Unknown Officials of Department of Agriculture and Natural Resources, South Dakota Department of Agriculture and Natural Resources, Dewild, Grant, Reckert and Associates Company

Summary

The United States District Court for the District of South Dakota considers motions to dismiss claims brought by Preserve French Creek, Inc. concerning a wastewater discharge permit authorizing the City of Custer to discharge effluent into French Creek. The claims include procedural due process under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, violations of the Clean Water Act, and violations of South Dakota law. The opinion addresses subject-matter jurisdiction issues including standing, Eleventh Amendment immunity, ripeness, and the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, and is captioned as an opinion and order granting the motions to dismiss.

Holdings

1. PFC adequately alleged associational standing because its members alleged concrete and particularized injuries from inadequate notice, the injury was fairly traceable to the permitting process, prospective relief could redress it, the claim was germane to PFC's purpose, and individual-member participation was not required for the requested declaratory and injunctive relief.
2. The Eleventh Amendment barred the procedural due process claim against DANR, but the Ex parte Young exception permitted the claim to proceed at the pleading stage against Secretary Roberts and unknown DANR officials in their official capacities because PFC alleged an ongoing federal due process violation and sought prospective injunctive relief.
3. The Rooker-Feldman doctrine did not bar PFC's procedural due process claim.
4. PFC's procedural due process claim was ripe because the alleged deprivation was the issuance of the permit without adequate predeprivation process, not the later discharge of effluent.
5. PFC's Clean Water Act claim was not ripe because no discharge into French Creek had occurred and any future violation depended on contingent events.
6. PFC's procedural due process claim was barred by South Dakota's three-year statute of limitations because the alleged deprivation and inadequate process had occurred no later than the permit's issuance on January 13, 2021.
7. PFC failed to state a Clean Water Act claim because it did not allege that the City had discharged a pollutant, and it could not allege a permit violation before any discharge occurred.
8. The court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over PFC's remaining South Dakota law claims after dismissing all claims within the court's original jurisdiction.

Questions Presented

1. Whether PFC and its members had Article III and associational standing to assert a procedural due process claim.
2. Whether the Eleventh Amendment barred the procedural due process claim against the South Dakota Department of Agriculture and Natural Resources and its officials.
3. Whether the Rooker-Feldman doctrine barred the procedural due process claim because of the prior South Dakota litigation.
4. Whether the procedural due process claim was ripe before any discharge into French Creek occurred.
5. Whether the procedural due process claim was barred by South Dakota's three-year statute of limitations.
6. Whether PFC's Clean Water Act citizen-suit claim was ripe and plausibly alleged a discharge of a pollutant without a permit or in violation of a permit.
7. Whether the court should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over PFC's remaining state-law claims.

Disposition

other