Hughes, Jim E. v. Marinette County ( 2005 )


Menu:
  •                              UNPUBLISHED ORDER
    Not to be cited per Circuit Rule 53
    United States Court of Appeals
    For the Seventh Circuit
    Chicago, Illinois 60604
    Argued April 13, 2005
    Decided June 7, 2005
    Before
    Hon. WILLIAM J. BAUER, Circuit Judge
    Hon. DIANE P. WOOD, Circuit Judge
    Hon. ANN CLAIRE WILLIAMS, Circuit Judge
    Nos. 04-2731 & 04-3606
    JIM E. HUGHES, SALLY LENTZ,                       Appeal from the United States District
    et al.,                                           Court for the Eastern District
    Plaintiffs-Appellants,                 of Wisconsin.
    v.                                          No. 02 C 1038
    MARINETTE COUNTY, LINDA                           William C. Griesbach,
    DUMKE-MARQUARDT and JOSEPH                        Judge.
    TERRY,
    Defendants-Appellees.
    ORDER
    Plaintiffs appeal the district court’s dismissal of their due process and takings
    claims. As plaintiffs did not first exhaust their possible state court remedies, we affirm
    the district court’s dismissal for want of subject matter jurisdiction.
    Though the factual background is somewhat convoluted, the plaintiffs’ basic
    complaint is that the Marinette County Clerk unlawfully transferred the deed to their
    property to Joseph Terry, who had successfully bid on the land at auction, thereby
    “taking” their property without just compensation and without due process of law.
    Their chief argument is that the exhaustion requirement set forth in Williamson
    County Regional Planning Comm’n v. Hamilton Bank of Johnson City, 
    473 U.S. 172
    ,
    
    105 S. Ct. 3108
    (1985), doesn’t apply to this set of facts because the taking in the
    instant case was for a purely private use. This court has previously addressed this
    Nos. 04-2731 and 04-3606                                                        Page 2
    argument in Covington Court Ltd. v. Village of Oak Brook, 
    77 F.3d 177
    (7th Cir. 1996),
    and rejected it. We see no reason to stray from that holding now. The plaintiffs’ claim
    is premature and was properly dismissed.
    Plaintiffs also appeal the district court’s award of attorney’s fees to Defendant
    Joseph Terry. We agree with the district court’s determination that there is no
    conceivable way that Terry could have ever been viewed as a state actor; the court did
    not abuse its discretion in awarding attorney’s fees.
    AFFIRMED.
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 04-2731, 04-3606

Judges: Bauer, Wood, Williams

Filed Date: 6/7/2005

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 11/5/2024