Filed: May 06, 2005
Latest Update: Feb. 21, 2020
Summary: Ramon E. Castro, Ida L. Castro and Aurora Adames on brief pro, se. on, brief for appellee Puerto Rico Highway and Transportation, Authority.dismissal of the federal claims in these cases pursuant to Fed. and the local procedures here suffice.Moran, 904 F.2d 748, 757 (1st Cir.
Not For Publication in West's Federal Reporter
Citation Limited Pursuant to 1st Cir. Loc. R. 32.3
United States Court of Appeals
For the First Circuit
No. 04-1604
EZEQUIEL CASTRO-RIVERA, ET AL.,
Plaintiffs, Appellants,
v.
FERNANDO FAGUNDO, ET AL.,
Defendants, Appellees.
No. 04-1635
AURORA ADAMES, ET AL.,
Plaintiffs, Appellants,
v.
PUERTO RICO HIGHWAY AND TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY, ET AL.,
Defendants, Appellees.
APPEALS FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO
[Hon. Raymond L. Acosta, Senior U.S. District Judge]
Before
Boudin, Chief Judge,
Lipez and Howard, Circuit Judges.
Ramon E. Castro, Ida L. Castro and Aurora Adames on brief pro
se.
Raul Castellanos-Malave and E. Umpierre Suarez, C.S.P. on
brief for appellee Puerto Rico Highway and Transportation
Authority.
Juan J. Villella-Janeiro on brief for appellee Barrett & Hale.
Francisco Rios-Rivera and Llovet Zurinaga & Lopez, P.S.C. on
brief for appellee Esteban Mujica.
May 6, 2005
Per Curiam. After a thorough review of the record and of the
parties' lengthy submissions, we affirm the district court's
dismissal of the federal claims in these cases pursuant to Fed. R.
Civ. P. 12(b)(6). The just compensation claim was not ripe at the
time it was dismissed. See Williamson County Reg'l Planning Comm'n
v. Hamilton Bank, 473 U.S. 172 (1985). Appellants suggest that the
state procedures for obtaining just compensation are inadequate
because they do not provide for recovery of attorney's fees; but
there is no authority for this suggestion. The American Rule is
well-established, and it provides that attorney's fees "are not
ordinarily recoverable in the absence of a statute or enforceable
contract providing therefor." Fleischmann Distilling Corp. v.
Maier Brewing Co.,
386 U.S. 714, 717 (1967).
The district court also was correct to dismiss the procedural
and substantive due process claims. Appellants seem to concede
that they were afforded notice and an opportunity to be heard by
the Environmental Quality Board that developed the Environmental
Impact Statement in question. But, where a plaintiff claims his
procedural due process rights were violated, the federal court's
only concern should be whether the procedure afforded was
constitutionally adequate; and the local procedures here suffice.
The appellants' claim that government officials acted arbitrarily
and/or in violation of state law and procedures is a substantive
due process claim. See Zinermon v. Burch, 494 U.S. 113 (1990).
-3-
Not every incorrect decision by a state administrative body rises
to the level of a due process violation. See PFZ Properties, Inc.
v. Rodriguez, 928 F.2d 28, 31 (1st Cir. 1991) ("Even where state
officials have allegedly violated state law or administrative
procedures, such violations do not ordinarily rise to the level of
a constitutional deprivation.") (citation omitted). "Our cases
make clear that a regulatory board does not transgress
constitutional due process requirements merely by making decisions
'for erroneous reasons' or by making 'demands which arguably exceed
its authority under the relevant state statutes.'" Amsden v.
Moran, 904 F.2d 748, 757 (1st Cir. 1990) (quoting Creative Env'ts,
Inc. v. Estabrook,
680 F.2d 822, 832 n. 9 (1st Cir. 1982)). The
court will allow substantive due process claims to proceed "in
truly horrendous situations," Nestor Colon Medina & Succesores,
Inc. v. Custodio,
964 F.2d 32, 45 (1st Cir. 1992); but "the
threshold for establishing the requisite 'abuse of government
power' is a high one indeed."
Id. That threshold has not been met
here.
For all of these reasons, the judgment of the district court
in these cases is affirmed.
-4-
