Landowner May Not Maintain Federal Suit When Currently Facing State Criminal Proceedings Under Younger Doctrine, Eighth Circuit Holds
Per Cormack v. Settle-Beshears, 474 F.3d 528 (8th Cir. Jan. 23, 2007):
[Plaintiff] argues that [defendant city] Van Buren's annexation of his property and enforcement of its ordinance prohibiting the sale of fireworks amounted to a regulatory taking. Although under Williamson County Regional Planning Commission v. Hamilton Bank of Johnson City, 473 U.S. 172 (1985), federal courts are barred from considering the merits of a takings claim until a private litigant exhausts state remedies, Cormack believes that an exception applies to this case. If a state's remedies are inadequate or unavailable, exhaustion is not required, see id. at 196-97, 105 S.Ct. 3108, and Cormack claims that Arkansas has no remedy which would adequately compensate him for the taking.
This exception to Williamson County is narrow, and the claimant bears the “heavy burden” of showing that the state remedy is inadequate. Deniz v. Municipality of Guaynabo, 285 F.3d 142, 146 (1st Cir.2002). We have been unable to find a case in which this court has declared a state's inverse condemnation procedures to be inadequate, and in Collier v. City of Springdale, 733 F.2d 1311 (8th Cir.1984), we held that Arkansas provides adequate mechanisms for its citizens to be justly compensated for takings. See id. at 1316-17.
At oral argument counsel for Cormack contended that case law since Collier demonstrates that Arkansas state remedies are inadequate, but he did not say how the regulatory takings jurisprudence of Arkansas is inconsistent with the Supreme Court's leading decisions, let alone demonstrates that Arkansas courts provide less constitutional protection than the federal courts. While the Arkansas Supreme Court phrases its evaluation of takings claims differently from the United States Supreme Court, there is simply no indication that Arkansas gives landowners less protection than “the federal baseline.” Kelo v. City of New London, 545 U.S. 469 (2005).
Cormack next argues that the way in which the city annexed his land violated the Fourteenth Amendment by failing to provide him with due process before the annexation. He claims that he was not given notice of the contemplated annexation fifteen days before the Van Buren city council's hearing on the annexation ordinance as required by Arkansas law. See Ark.Code Ann. 14-40-502(b). He also claims that when he attended the hearing he was never told that the sale of fireworks would be prohibited if his property were annexed.
We assume as we must, see Westcott, 901 F.2d at 1488, that the city council failed to provide Cormack the notice which is required by Arkansas law. This violation of Arkansas law does not offend the federal Constitution, however, because “a sovereign vested with the power of eminent domain may exercise that power consistent with the constitution without providing prior notice, hearing or compensation so long as there exists an adequate [postdeprivation] mechanism for obtaining compensation.” Collier, 733 F.2d at 1314. Because Cormack has not shown that Arkansas lacks an adequate postdeprivation mechanism to provide him with just compensation for the alleged taking, his due process claim must fail.
Cormack contends that the city violated his Fourth Amendment rights when its agents issued him a citation for selling fireworks on his property and put up police tape on the fireworks tent and threatened him with arrest if he removed the tape. The district court abstained under Younger v. Harris from exercising jurisdiction over this claim. Younger abstention is appropriate when (1) the federal action would disrupt an ongoing state judicial proceeding (2) which implicates important state interests and (3) which provides an adequate opportunity to raise constitutional challenges. Middlesex County Ethics Comm. v. Garden State Bar Ass'n, 457 U.S. 423, 432 (1982). Here, the state criminal proceedings against Cormack are still pending before an Arkansas district court in which he can presumably raise the Fourth Amendment in defense. In these circumstances abstention is appropriate. Moreover, state interests in land use regulation may also be implicated in that case. See Night Clubs, Inc. v. City of Fort Smith, 163 F.3d 475, 480 (8th Cir.1998).