Covenant Media of South Carolina, LLC v. Town of Surfside Beach , 321 F. App'x 251 ( 2009 )


Menu:
  •                              UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 07-2083
    COVENANT MEDIA OF SOUTH CAROLINA, LLC,
    Plaintiff - Appellant,
    v.
    TOWN OF SURFSIDE BEACH,
    Defendant - Appellee.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
    South Carolina, at Florence.   Terry L. Wooten, District Judge.
    (4:05-cv-02029-TLW)
    Argued:   January 27, 2009                 Decided:    April 2, 2009
    Before NIEMEYER, TRAXLER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Edward Adam Webb, WEBB LAW GROUP, L.L.C., Atlanta, Georgia, for
    Appellant.    Andrew Lindemann, DAVIDSON & LINDEMANN, P.A.,
    Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    PER CURIAM:
    Covenant    Media,        Inc.,   appeals   from    the        district    court’s
    rejection of its action challenging the constitutionality of the
    Town of Surfside Beach’s sign ordinance.                 Finding no error that
    warrants reversal, we affirm the district court’s order granting
    summary judgment in favor of the Town.
    I.
    Prior to October 2006, 1 the Town had in force an ordinance
    that required the issuance of permits before most on- or off-
    premises    signs    could     be   constructed.        Broadly       speaking,       the
    ordinance     treated         all   off-premises        signs        as     billboards.
    Billboards    could      be     placed   only    on     vacant       lots    within     a
    designated area (in a “C-1 highway commercial” zoning district).
    There could be only one billboard per vacant lot, and no more
    than 12 billboards could be located within the Town limits.                           The
    ordinance     also       established         various         size     and      set-back
    restrictions.
    According      to   the    allegations      of    its    complaint,       Covenant
    submitted a complete sign application package to the Town on
    1
    The Town enacted a new                  sign ordinance that became
    effective on October 24, 2006.                  No issue regarding the new
    ordinance is before this court.
    2
    December    2,    2004,       but   the   Town     never      responded        to   the
    application.     Although the Town contends that it never actually
    received the 2004 application, we will assume, in light of the
    procedural posture of this case, that Covenant did in fact file
    the permit application with the Town and that the Town failed to
    act on the application.
    Covenant did not contact the Town to check on the status of
    its application, but instead commenced this action in July 2005.
    Covenant claimed that the ordinance was unconstitutional because
    it   impermissibly     favored      commercial    speech      over     noncommercial
    speech,    did   not   provide      a   time    limit   for     acting    on    permit
    applications, and did not set forth its purpose, as required by
    the Supreme Court in Central Hudson Gas & Electric Corp. v.
    Public Service Commission, 
    447 U.S. 557
     (1980).
    In   October     2005    (after     the    filing    of    its     complaint),
    Covenant submitted nine more applications for billboards.                           The
    2005 sign applications did not comply with the requirements of
    the sign ordinance – for example, the proposed signs would have
    violated the setback requirements, would have been located on
    lots that already contained a permitted sign, and would have
    exceeded the limit of 12 billboards inside Town limits.                             The
    Town therefore denied all of the 2005 applications.                      During the
    course of this litigation, Covenant provided the Town with a
    copy of the 2004 application.             The Town submitted an affidavit
    3
    stating    that   it   would     have   denied       the    2004   application     for
    largely the same reasons that it denied the 2005 applications.
    The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the
    Town, concluding that the 2004 sign application would have been
    denied     because     it   did     not       comply       with    constitutionally
    unobjectionable portions of the ordinance and that Covenant thus
    lacked     standing    to      challenge       the     handling      of    the     2004
    application. 2     This appeal followed.
    II.
    On appeal, Covenant first contends that the district court
    erred by concluding that it lacked standing.                  We agree.
    The jurisdiction of federal courts extends only to actual
    cases and controversies.          See U.S. Const., art. III, § 2, cl. 1.
    “A justiciable case or controversy requires a plaintiff who has
    alleged such a personal stake in the outcome of the controversy
    as to warrant his invocation of federal court jurisdiction and
    to   justify     exercise   of    the     court’s      remedial     powers    on   his
    behalf.”     White Tail Park, Inc. v. Stroube, 
    413 F.3d 451
    , 458
    (4th Cir. 2005) (internal quotation marks omitted).                       A plaintiff
    2
    Covenant did not amend its complaint to include claims
    challenging the denial of the 2005 applications, and the
    district court’s order considered Covenant’s claims with regard
    to the 2004 application only. We likewise limit our analysis to
    the 2004 application.
    4
    has   standing   –    that    is,    a    sufficient     personal      stake    in    the
    controversy – if the plaintiff can show an “injury in fact,” a
    “causal connection between the injury and the conduct complained
    of,” and “a likelihood that the injury will be redressed by a
    favorable decision.”          Covenant Media of South Carolina, LLC v.
    City of North Charleston, 
    493 F.3d 421
    , 428 (4th Cir. 2007)
    (internal quotation marks omitted).
    Our    decision    in    Covenant          Media   controls      the     standing
    question.     As in Covenant Media, Covenant here was injured by a
    delay in the processing of its permit application, an injury
    that Covenant contends was caused by a constitutional defect in
    the Town’s ordinance.          If we were to accept Covenant’s argument
    in that regard, the injury would at least be redressable by an
    award of nominal damages.                Covenant therefore has standing to
    pursue its claim.       See 
    id. at 428-29
    .
    III.
    Although   the     district        court     erred   in    determining         that
    Covenant     lacked     standing,          we     nonetheless       conclude         that
    Covenant’s    claims    fail    on       the    merits   and    that   the     district
    court therefore properly granted summary judgment to the Town.
    See Blum v. Bacon, 
    457 U.S. 132
    , 137 n.5 (1982) (“It is well
    accepted . . . that without filing a cross-appeal or cross-
    petition, an appellee may rely upon any matter appearing in the
    5
    record in support of the judgment below.”); Covenant Media, 
    493 F.3d at 430-31
    .
    A.
    As to Covenant’s facial challenges to the ordinance, see
    
    id. at 431
     (considering both facial and as-applied challenges
    after determining that Covenant had standing), Covenant first
    argues that the ordinance violates the First Amendment because
    the ordinance itself does not include a clause setting forth the
    purposes      the     ordinance    was     intended    to     serve.        See    Central
    Hudson,    
    447 U.S. at 564
         (holding     that     a     restriction        on
    commercial          speech    must        directly     advance         a     substantial
    governmental interest).            This court, however, has never required
    that a challenged ordinance include an explicit declaration of
    the underlying governmental purposes, nor do we believe that
    such a requirement is implicit in the Central Hudson standard.
    Cf.   Bolger     v.    Youngs     Drug    Prods.     Corp.,    
    463 U.S. 60
    ,    70-71
    (1983) (“The Appellants do not purport to rely on justifications
    for the statute offered during the 19th Century.                           Instead, they
    advance interests that concededly were not asserted when the
    prohibition was enacted into law.                  This reliance is permissible
    since   the    insufficiency         of    the   original      motivation         does   not
    diminish other interests that the restriction may now serve.”
    (footnotes omitted)).             The absence of an explicit statement of
    purpose in the billboard ordinance therefore does not render the
    6
    ordinance invalid under Central Hudson.                         Moreover, the purposes
    asserted by the Town – promoting traffic safety and aesthetics –
    are     substantial       governmental            interests       that        are     directly
    advanced by the ordinance.                   See Georgia Outdoor Advertising,
    Inc. v. City of Waynesville, 
    833 F.2d 43
    , 46 (4th Cir. 1987)
    (“It requires neither elaboration nor citation to say that an
    ordinance      regulating        billboards         is     likely        to    advance       the
    objective of enhancing the beauty of a city, and that no less
    intrusive        method        would     adequately             protect        the        city’s
    interest.”).
    Covenant        also      contends          that         the      ordinance          is
    unconstitutional because it does not require the Town to act on
    a permit application within a specified time.                            See Freedman v.
    Maryland, 
    380 U.S. 51
    , 58-59 (1965).                            In Covenant Media, we
    found    North     Charleston’s        ordinance      to    be    content-neutral           and
    thus     not     subject        to     the        Freedman        procedural-safeguard
    requirements.           See    Covenant      Media,       
    493 F.3d at 435
    .      The
    ordinance at issue here is in all relevant respects functionally
    identical to the ordinance in Covenant Media, and we likewise
    conclude that the ordinance is content-neutral and thus need not
    include    the     decision-making           timeframe       required         by     Freedman.
    Accordingly,       we    reject      Covenant’s          facial    challenges         to    the
    ordinance.
    7
    B.
    Finally, we consider Covenant’s as-applied challenge, which
    is based on the Town’s delay in processing the December 2004
    permit     application.       Although          we    have    concluded    that   the
    ordinance was not required to contain the procedural safeguards
    set out in Freedman, “a decisionmaker cannot use the absence of
    such requirements to stifle free expression.”                     Covenant Media,
    
    493 F.3d at 435
    .          Accordingly, we must determine whether the
    Town “applied the absence of time limitations in [the ordinance]
    in such a manner to stifle Covenant’s First Amendment rights.”
    
    Id.
    As   we   explained     in    Covenant         Media,   Covenant     must   show
    conduct beyond mere negligence in order to establish a violation
    of its First Amendment rights.                  See 
    id. at 436
    .      Despite being
    on notice that the Town was seeking summary judgment on the
    merits of its claims and having an opportunity to engage in
    discovery, Covenant has presented no evidence that the Town’s
    actions     were   anything        beyond       negligence.       “Thus,      because
    negligent conduct is not enough to support a First Amendment
    claim against government officials, the absence of anything but
    negligence      proves   fatal     to   Covenant’s       as-applied       challenge.”
    
    Id. at 437
    .
    8
    IV.
    Although we disagree with the district court’s conclusion
    that Covenant lacked standing to assert its challenges to the
    ordinance,   we   nonetheless   conclude   that   Covenant’s   challenges
    fail on the merits.     Accordingly, we hereby affirm the district
    court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of the Town.
    AFFIRMED
    9