Thomas v. State

451 F.Supp.3d 849

William H. THOMAS, Jr., Plaintiff,

v.State of TENNESSEE; Clay Bright, Current Commissioner of Tennessee Department of Transportation, in his official capacity; John Schroer, Former Commissioner of Tennessee Department of Transportation, in his individual capacity; John Reinbold, in his individual capacity; Patti Bowlan, in her individual capacity; and Shawn Bible, in her individual capacity, Defendants.

Case No. 2:19-cv-2427-JPM-tmp

United States District Court, W.D. Tennessee, Western Division.

Signed March 31, 2020

William H. Thomas, Jr., Law Office of William H. Thomas, Jr., Memphis, TN, for Plaintiff.

Amanda Shanan Jordan, Dawn Jordan, Office of the Tennessee Attorney General, Nashville, TN, for Defendants.

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS

JON P. McCALLA, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

This cause is before the Court on Defendants' July 26, 2019 Motion to Dismiss. (ECF No. 12.) Defendants move the Court pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) to dismiss all of Plaintiff William Thomas's claims for failure to state a plausible claim for relief. (Id. at PageID 93.) Defendants argue that Plaintiff's claims should be dismissed for some, if not all, of the following reasons: (1) that Plaintiff's claims are time-barred by the applicable statute of limitations; (2) that res judicata bars Plaintiff's claims; (3) that Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity; (4) that the Rooker-Feldman doctrine bars the Court from granting Plaintiff's requested relief; and (5) that the Supreme Court's interpretation of the limits imposed on Article III courts by the Eleventh Amendment in Pennhurst State School v. Halderman, 465 U.S. 89, 104 S.Ct. 900, 79 L.Ed.2d 67 (1984), bars the Court from ruling on some of Plaintiff's claims. (Memorandum of Law, ECF No. 13.)

Plaintiff filed his Response to Defendants' Motion to Dismiss on August 26, 2019. (ECF No. 16.) Plaintiff argues that his claims are not time-barred because the Tennessee Court of Appeals refused to remedy Defendants' alleged violations of Thomas's constitutional rights as late as Spring of 2019. (See id. ¶¶ 12–14; see also Complaint, ECF No. 1 ¶¶ 25, 45.) Plaintiff argues that the decisions of the Tennessee Court of Appeals are unconstitutional. (Response, ECF No. 16 at PageID 153.) Plaintiff also asserts that his claims are timely because Defendants' actions in connection with Thomas's ongoing state proceedings constitute a "conspiracy between the Defendants and their Counsel herein" to violate Plaintiff's constitutional rights. (Id. ¶ 18.) Plaintiff also argues that his claims are not time-barred because of the Supreme Court's decision in American Pipe and Construction Co. v. Utah, 414 U.S. 538, 94 S.Ct. 756, 38 L.Ed.2d 713 (1974), and because Defendants waived their affirmative defense in Thomas's ongoing bankruptcy proceedings. (Id. ¶¶ 16–17.)

For the reasons set forth below, Defendants' Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED .

I. BACKGROUND

A. Factual and Procedural Background

Plaintiff filed the instant action on July 5, 2019. (ECF No. 1.) Plaintiff brings this action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, asserting that various actions by Defendants Clay Bright, John Schroer, John Reinbold, Patti Bowlan, and Shawn Bible¹ violated his First Amendment rights, violated the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment, and violated the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment. (Id. ¶ 8, PageID 15.)

The events underlying these alleged constitutional violations were the subject of a 2013 case before this Court, Thomas v. Schroer, Case No. 2:13-cv-02987. (Id. ) That case involved allegations that various Tennessee state officials (several of whom are currently named as defendants in this case) violated both Plaintiff's First Amendment rights and the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment. (Case No. 13-2987, Complaint, ECF No. 1.) Plaintiff's 2013 action alleged that the Tennessee Department of Transportation and its employees engaged in the "selective and vindictive enforcement" of the Tennessee Billboard Act and provisions of Tennessee code governing zoning restrictions, and that these officials unlawfully removed billboards from several of Thomas's Shelby and Fayette County, Tennessee properties. (See, Amended Complaint, ECF No. 45 ¶¶ 30, 33, 35–36, 45–47.) This Court found that the Tennessee Billboard Act is unconstitutional on grounds that the Act was a content-based regulation of speech that was not narrowly tailored to achieve any government purpose. Thomas v. Schroer, 248 F. Supp. 3d 868, 894–95 (W.D. Tenn. 2017).

Plaintiff's Complaint also references the Tennessee state-court proceedings initiated by Thomas both before and after Thomas filed his 2013 federal case that addressed these same events. As far back as 2008, the Tennessee Chancery Court found that the Tennessee Department of Transportation violated Plaintiff's constitutional rights by "engaging in selective and vindictive action against [Plaintiff] Thomas" and by "engag[ing] in the use of legally biased advisors in proceedings involving Thomas...." (Id. ¶ 11.) The Tennessee state court ordered Defendants to "challenge the zoning of a property owned or leased by Thomas known as the Kate Bond property [through] a Court action and not [through] an administrative proceeding." (Id. ¶ 11.) In 2010, the Tennessee Court of Appeals reversed the Chancery Court's decision, finding that the court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over Thomas's claims. See State ex rel. Comm'r of Dep't of Transp. v. Thomas, 336 S.W.3d 588 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2010). (Id. ¶ 12.) According to Thomas, following the Court of Appeals' decision Defendants attempted to remove the billboards located on Plaintiff's Crossroad Ford, Kate Bond Road, and Perkins Road properties located in Fayette and Shelby Counties, Tennessee. (Id. ¶ 13, 15.) On remand, the Tennessee Chancery Court found that these actions violated both federal and state law. (Id. ¶ 14.) On December 11, 2014, the Tennessee Court of Appeals once again reversed the Chancery Court's decision. (Id. ¶ 16.) The Court of Appeals found that the Chancery Court lacked subject matter jurisdiction to hear Plaintiff's claims and further required Plaintiff to comply with the provisions of the Tennessee Billboard Act. (Id. )

Plaintiff alleges that shortly after the Court entered its order finding the Billboard Act unconstitutional, see supra, he filed a motion for judgment consistent with this Court's ruling in the Tennessee Chancery Court. (Id. ¶ 17.) On July 16, 2018, the Chancery Court granted Plaintiff's motion and issued a permanent injunction against the Tennessee Department of Transportation to prevent it from enforcing the Tennessee Billboard Act. (ECF No. 1 ¶¶ 18–22.) The Tennessee Department of Transportation filed an application for extraordinary appeal of the Chancery Court's ruling with the Tennessee Court of Appeals. (Id. ¶ 23.) On April 15, 2019, the Tennessee Court of Appeals once again reversed the Chancery Court's decision, finding that the lower court improperly relied on this Court's opinion and that the court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over Thomas's case. (Id. ¶¶ 23–26.)

Thomas asserts that the Tennessee Court of Appeals' repeated refusal to hear his case has left him with no choice but to "pursue those claims in the United States District Court [for the Western District of Tennessee.]" (Id. ¶¶ 10–11.) Plaintiff alleges that the Tennessee Department of Transportation and its employees have continued to violate Plaintiff's constitutional rights in connection with events that occurred before and during the various state-court proceedings. (Id. ¶ 28–29.)

B. Plaintiff's Claims

Plaintiff asserts several claims against Defendants. First, Plaintiff claims that Defendants engaged in the "selective and vindictive enforcement" of provisions of Tennessee code and Tennessee Department of Transportation regulations and employed "legally biased advisors" in violation of Plaintiff's First Amendment rights and the Due Process and Equal Protection clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment. (Id. ¶ 33; see also Exhibit B, ECF No. 1-4.) Second, Plaintiff claims that the removal of the "billboard structures in Shelby and Fayette Counties" violated his constitutional rights. (Id. ¶ 33.) Third, Plaintiff claims that Defendants' "refusal to challenge the zoning of properties in court" with respect to his Steve Road billboards, in light of the Tennessee Chancery Court's 2008 order (attached as Exhibit B to his Complaint) violated his constitutional rights. (Id. ) Fourth, Plaintiff claims that the State of Tennessee violated his "constitutional rights of due process and equal protection ... arising from the Defendants['] refusal to enforce and follow its own rules and regulations under the Tennessee Billboard Act as to Clear Channel Outdoor, Inc.," and by continuing to challenge the decisions of the Tennessee Chancery Court. (Id. ¶ 34–35.) Fifth, Plaintiff claims that the State's inverse condemnation actions against his Kate Bond Road, Perkins Road, and Fayette County billboards violated the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment. (Id. at PageID 16.)

Plaintiff requests that this Court issue: (1) a declaration finding that Defendants violated his First Amendment right to free speech; (2) a declaration that Defendants' alleged actions violated the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment; (3) an order requiring that Defendants compensate Plaintiff for the State's unlawful seizure of his Kate Bond Road, Perkins Road, and Fayette County billboards, and finding that the Defendants' seizure of these billboards violated the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment; (4) a declaration finding that Defendants failed to comply with and enforce Tennessee state zoning laws and an order requiring that Defendants rebuild Thomas's billboards; (5) an award of punitive damages and compensatory damages; (6) attorney's fees and costs;...