Bruce Peters v. Village of Clifton, et al.

Bruce Peters brought this action
under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against the Village of Clifton
("Village"), Alexander, Cox & McTaggert, Inc. ("ACM")
and Joseph McTaggert. He alleged that the defendants
had trespassed on his property in order to expand the
Village's sewage discharge system and, in so doing, had
committed an unconstitutional taking of his property in violation of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments. On the
Village's Rule 12(b)(1) motion, the district court dismissed
the action. Mr. Peters appealed. We agree that the district
court properly dismissed the action, and, accordingly,
we affirm the judgment of the district court.

I

Background

A. Facts

Mr. Peters owns a parcel of agricultural land just outside
the eastern edge of the village limits of Clifton, Illinois.
ACM owns agricultural property within the village limits
that directly abuts Mr. Peters' land. Running eastward
along Mr. Peters' property is a waterway that empties
into a drainage ditch. At some unknown time in the past,
prior to Mr. Peters' ownership of the property, farm
drainage tile had been buried on Mr. Peters' land. The tile
was parallel to and beneath the waterway. The Village
had an existing sewage line in the vicinity for some time.
The line ran under ACM's property.

Mr. Peters claims that, in 2005, the private defendants, at
the instruction of the Village, trespassed onto his land, dug
up the old, non-functioning sewer tile and installed new,
larger tile. This newly-installed tile, Mr. Peters contends,
was then connected to the Village's existing sewage tile "at
or about the property line" between his land and that
owned by ACM. R.1 at 4. The Village thus created, he
maintains, an "unregulated[,] unlicensed sanitary sewer
system discharging sewage through the farm tile within
[Mr. Peters'] property." Id. at 3. Mr. Peters believes that
the Village made these improvements in an attempt to make the adjacent land within the Village boundaries
suitable for development.

Mr. Peters claims that, to install the new tile, ACM, with
the consent of the Village, came onto his property and used
"various poisons on the nature preserve bordering the
above ground drainage ditch, underneath which is the
[Village's] illegal sanitary sewage line." He claims that this
action destroyed trees and destabilized the land. Id. at 4.
Mr. Peters claims that acres of his farmland were rendered
unsuitable for agricultural uses because of soil
compaction and drainage of "untreated sewage and
waste materials." Id. at 5.

B. District Court Proceedings

Mr. Peters filed a complaint in the United States District
Court for the Central District of Illinois. He asserted that
the defendants had committed an unauthorized taking
of his property in violation of the Takings Clause of the
Fifth Amendment of the Constitution as made applicable
to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment. See
Chicago, B. & Q. R. Co. v. City of Chicago, 166 U.S. 226,
233, 236-37 (1897). Mr. Peters requested compensatory
damages for the taking and a permanent injunction forbidding
the Village from discharging any materials
through the drainage tiles on his property.1

The Village moved to dismiss the action under Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, claiming that the action was not ripe. Specifically,
the Village contended that, before Mr. Peters could
assert a takings claim in federal court, he was required
first to seek compensation through appropriate state
channels. This course was mandated, in the Village's view,
by the decision of the Supreme Court in Williamson County
Regional Planning Commission v. Hamilton Bank of Johnson
County, 473 U.S. 172 (1985).