Joanne Romano, Foster Romano, Michael Sanchez, Susan Sanchez, Karen McKernan, Kevin McKernan, Valerie Frost, Glennn Frost, Oya Turksonmez, Cemil Turksonmez, Steven Ahern, Maureen Ahern, Dennis Traina, Brittni Traina, Roberto Bello, Michael Morello, and Eileen Morello v. Elite Towers, L.P., The Town of Riverhead, Tim Hubbard, individually, Kenneth Rothwell, individually, Bob Kern, in his official capacity as Councilman, Denise Merrifield, in her official capacity as Councilwoman, Joann Waski, in her official capacity as Councilwoman, The Wading River Fire District, and New York SMSA Limited Partnership d/b/a Verizon Wireless

Summary

The Eastern District of New York granted defendants’ motions to dismiss an action challenging the Town of Riverhead’s approval of a proposed wireless communication facility. The court held that plaintiffs’ First Amendment petition, prior-restraint, and conspiracy claims were not plausibly alleged and that various defendants were protected by legislative immunity, qualified immunity, or the absence of state action.

Holdings

1. Councilmembers are entitled to absolute legislative immunity for official actions undertaken in the sphere of legitimate legislative activity, including the Town Board's vote exempting the cell-tower application from zoning requirements.
2. Hubbard and Rothwell were protected by qualified immunity because plaintiffs did not identify clearly established First Amendment rights that placed the alleged unconstitutionality of the Town Board's conduct beyond debate.
3. Elite Towers and Verizon were not liable under Section 1983 because plaintiffs did not plausibly allege that their conduct constituted state action under the compulsion, joint-action, or public-function tests.
4. Plaintiffs failed to state a Section 1983 conspiracy claim because they did not plausibly allege either an agreement among the defendants to violate constitutional rights or an underlying unconstitutional injury.
5. Plaintiffs did not plausibly allege a violation of the right to petition because they had notice of the Town Board meetings, attended or could attend them, and had an opportunity to present their opposition, even though the Town Board rejected their position and did not refer the matter to the Zoning Board of Appeals.
6. The Town Board's approval of the cell-tower application was not a prior restraint on plaintiffs' speech because plaintiffs were not prevented from presenting their opposition to the Town Board and the approval did not suppress speech based on its content before expression.
7. The court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiffs' remaining New York state-law claims after dismissing all claims within its original federal-question jurisdiction.

Questions Presented

1. Whether plaintiffs plausibly alleged that Riverhead or the Wading River Fire District violated their First Amendment right to petition by approving the cell-tower application without allowing plaintiffs to present their objections to the Zoning Board of Appeals.
2. Whether the Town Board's approval of the cell-tower application constituted an unconstitutional prior restraint on plaintiffs' speech.
3. Whether plaintiffs plausibly alleged a Section 1983 conspiracy or other state action by private defendants Elite Towers and Verizon.
4. Whether legislative immunity barred claims against councilmembers sued in their official capacities.
5. Whether qualified immunity barred claims against Riverhead officials sued in their individual capacities.
6. Whether the court should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiffs' New York state-law claims after dismissing all federal claims.

Disposition

dismissed