Summary
The United States District Court for the Middle District of Georgia granted the City of Bowman’s second motion to dismiss Aubrey Lunsford’s remaining 42 U.S.C. § 1983 procedural due process claims. The court held that available state-law remedies, including zoning appeals and mandamus, precluded the claims concerning certificates of occupancy and completion and the installation of gas mains. The court also denied Lunsford’s motion for leave to amend and dismissed his state-law claims without prejudice after declining supplemental jurisdiction.
Holdings
- The claim failed because Lunsford had an adequate state-law remedy, including a breach-of-contract action seeking specific performance, and therefore could not establish constitutionally inadequate process.
- The claim failed because Lunsford did not adequately allege constitutionally inadequate process, where the City's zoning ordinance provided appeal procedures and Georgia law provided a potential mandamus remedy.
- The motion for leave to amend was denied because Lunsford neither stated the substance of the proposed amendment nor attached a proposed amended complaint.
- After dismissing all claims within its original jurisdiction, the court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state-law claims and dismissed them without prejudice.
Questions Presented
- Whether Lunsford stated a procedural due process claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 based on the City's failure to install natural-gas mains.
- Whether Lunsford stated a procedural due process claim based on the City's refusal to issue certificates of occupancy and completion for his storage building.
- Whether Lunsford was entitled to leave to amend when his motion did not set forth the substance of the proposed amendment or attach a proposed amended complaint.
- Whether the court should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state-law claims after dismissing all claims within its original jurisdiction.
Disposition
dismissed
Cases Cited (7)
- Lunsford v. City of Bowman, No. 3:25-CV-21 (CDL), 2025 WL 2394884 (M.D. Ga. Aug. 18, 2025)(followed)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009)(applied)
- Foxy Lady, Inc. v. City of Atlanta, 347 F.3d 1232, 1236, 1238 (11th Cir. 2003) (per curiam)(applied)
- Watts v. Fla. Int'l Univ., 495 F.3d 1289, 1294 (11th Cir. 2007)(applied)
- Cotton v. Jackson, 216 F.3d 1328, 1332 (11th Cir. 2000) (per curiam)(applied)
- Wiand v. ATC Brokers Ltd., 96 F.4th 1303, 1312 (11th Cir. 2024)(applied)
- Cita Tr. Co. AG v. Fifth Third Bank, 879 F.3d 1151, 1157 (11th Cir. 2018)(applied)
Cited In (0)
No citing cases on record yet.
Court Document
Open PDFLoading document…