David Broyles, et al v. State of Texas, et al

Filing 511140063

David Broyles, et al v. State of Texas, et al

Doc. 511140063

Case: 09-20290

Document: 00511140063

Page: 1

Date Filed: 06/11/2010

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS United States Court of Appeals FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT Fifth Circuit FILED
June 11, 2010 N o . 09-20290 S u m m a r y Calendar Lyle W. Cayce Clerk

D A V I D K. BROYLES; SHELLIE GALIK BROYLES; MICHAEL S. COOPER; B E R N I C E F. GILMORE; FREDERICK B. HOWDEN, IV; ERIC JONES; S T A C E Y JONES; BRIAN C. KIMMELL; BRIAN E. KOONS; JAMES R. M C K E A N ; CHARLES D. MCWILLIAMS; JERRY MOSBACHER; FAYE J E S S I E OLIVER; WILLIE IRVIN; MARTIN G. PARR; JAMES E. RITTER; C H E R Y L STALINSKY; LISA H. THEUT; JAMES A. WINNE, III, Plaintiffs-Appellants v. S T A T E OF TEXAS, Ex rel Greg Abbott, Texas Attorney General and Ex rel P h il Wilson, Texas Secretary of State; FORT BEND COUNTY, Ex rel Robert E . Hebert County Judge and Ex rel Dianne Wilson County Clerk; WESTON L A K E S PROPERTY OWNERS ASSOCIATION, INC., and its Board of T r u s t e e s ; HERBERT S. YATES; PATRICK A. HARRIS; CHARLES V. F L O W E R S ; RHONDA ZACHARIAS, Personally and Individually; WESTON L A K E S COMMUNITY INCORPORATION PROJECT COMMITTEE, Ex rel C lifto n H. Aldrich, its chairman; CITIZENS COMMITTEE FOR I N C O R P O R A T I O N OF WESTON LAKES, Ex rel Clifton H. Aldrich, its c h a ir m a n , Defendants-Appellees

A p p e a l from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas U S D C No. 4:08-CV-2320

B e fo r e GARZA, CLEMENT, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.

Dockets.Justia.com

Case: 09-20290

Document: 00511140063

Page: 2

Date Filed: 06/11/2010

No. 09-20290 P E R CURIAM:* F A C T S AND PROCEEDINGS A p p e lla n t s are residents and property owners who challenge a municipal in c o r p o r a t io n election held in May 2008, in which Weston Lakes, a private gated c o m m u n it y in Fort Bend County, Texas and adjacent land were incorporated as t h e City of Weston Lakes. The neighborhood is a 1,400-acre continuous tract w it h a guardhouse, security gates, swimming pool, country club, and golf course, w ith common areas, easements, and roads maintained by a nonprofit corporation u n d e r a lengthy set of covenants and by-laws. The community has about 800 r e s id e n c e s and 427 vacant lots. Some residents receive water and sewage s e r v ic e s from a private provider while others receive such services from the local M u n ic ip a l Utility District. Owners of lots in Weston Lakes pay annual dues and m a in t e n a n c e fees to the nonprofit that administers the common areas. The in c o r p o r a t e d area also includes some adjoining landowners who do not pay dues. I n January 2008, residents gathered enough signatures to place an i n c o r p o r a t io n vote on the ballot. Pursuant to Texas Local Government Code § 7.006, the vote was open only to residents of the proposed incorporation area, w h ile non-resident landowners were not permitted to vote. The vote was 58 to 4 2 percent in favor of incorporation, with nearly three-quarters of eligible voters c o m in g to the polls. Appellants alleged that the process leading up to the in c o r p o r a t io n vote was rushed, secretive, and tilted in favor of incorporation; t h a t the notice required by the Texas incorporation law was not given; that m e e t in g attendees were not told that a vote was imminent; and that there was im p r o p e r bullying of anti-incorporation voters at the polling place. They sought a declaratory judgment that § 7.006 is unconstitutional because it discriminates

Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.

*

2

Case: 09-20290

Document: 00511140063

Page: 3

Date Filed: 06/11/2010

No. 09-20290 a g a in s t non-resident landowners. They also alleged that the State of Texas and F o r t Bend County violated the National Voter Registration Act ("NVRA"), 42 U .S .C . § 1973gg et seq., and the Help America Vote Act ("HAVA"), 42 U.S.C. § 15302 et seq., through various failures in the voting process. Appellants also b r o u g h t various claims pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983, 1985, and 1986 against s t a t e and county officials for constitutional violations caused by "fatal errors" at t h e polls. They also brought additional state law claims. In a lengthy order, the d is t r ic t court granted Appellees' Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss the federal law c la im s and dismissed the state law claims without prejudice. See Broyles v. T e x a s , 618 F. Supp. 2d 661 (S.D. Tex. 2009). After additional briefing, the d is t r ic t court denied Appellants' motion for discovery and an evidentiary hearing a n d then awarded attorney's fees of less than $12,000 to Fort Bend County and v a r io u s individual plaintiffs. See Broyles v. Texas, 2009 WL 2215781 (S.D. Tex. J u ly 23, 2009). This appeal followed. S T A N D A R D OF REVIEW W e review de novo a district court's dismissal for failure to state a claim u n d e r FED. R. CIV. P. 12(b)(6). See Cuvillier v. Taylor, 503 F.3d 397, 401 (5th Cir. 2 0 0 7 ). In considering whether dismissal was appropriate, we must accept as true a ll well-pleaded facts. Baker v. Putnal, 75 F.3d 190, 196 (5th Cir. 1996). "To s u r v iv e a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss, a complaint `does not need detailed fa c t u a l allegations,' but must provide the plaintiff's grounds for entitlement to r e lie f-- in c lu d in g factual allegations that when assumed to be true `raise a right t o relief above the speculative level.'" Cuvillier, 503 F.3d at 401 (quoting Bell Atl. C o r p . v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007)). W e review a district court's award of attorney' fees under 42 U.S.C. § 1988 fo r abuse of discretion. See Merced v. Kasson, 577 F.3d 578, 595 (5th Cir. 2009).

3

Case: 09-20290

Document: 00511140063

Page: 4

Date Filed: 06/11/2010

No. 09-20290 D IS C U S S IO N A p p e lla n t s raise three issues on appeal. First, they argue that the district c o u r t committed error when it granted the motion to dismiss as to the u n c o n s t it u t io n a lit y of Texas Local Government Code § 7.006. Second, they argue t h a t the district court applied the wrong standard in resolving the Rule 12(b)(6) m o t io n . Third, they argue that it was an abuse of discretion to deny Appellants' m o t io n for discovery and an evidentiary hearing prior to awarding attorney's fe e s . Texas Local Government Code § 7.006 permits only qualified voters "who r e s id e [] within the boundaries of the proposed municipality" to vote on in c o r p o r a t io n . Appellants allege that the exclusion of non-resident landowners is an equal protection violation. This claim is not supported by case law. "[A] g o v e r n m e n t unit may legitimately restrict the right to participate in its political p r o c e s s e s to those who reside within its borders" and such a restriction does not v io la t e the Equal Protection Clause. Holt Civic Club v. City of Tuscaloosa, 439 U .S . 60, 68-69 (1978). The fact that non-residents may be affected by a m u n ic ip a lit y 's actions does not mean that non-residents "have a constitutional r ig h t to participate in the political processes bringing it about." Id. at 69. A p p e lla n t s ' attempt to distinguish the facts of the instant case from Holt fail. A p p e lla n t s also challenge the standard of review employed by the district c o u r t in ruling on the Rule 12(b)(6) motions before it. The district court cited and a p p lie d the standard drawn from Twombly, which requires that a complaint m u s t contain "enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face." 5 5 0 U.S. at 570. Twombly abrogated the "no set of facts" standard first a r t ic u la t e d in Conley v. Gibson. Id. at 546 ("Conley's `no set of facts' language . . . is best forgotten as an incomplete, negative gloss on an accepted pleading s t a n d a r d ." ). Appellants dismiss this language from Twombly as dicta, but in A s h c r o ft v. Iqbal, the Court confirmed that this pleading standard applied 4

Case: 09-20290

Document: 00511140063

Page: 5

Date Filed: 06/11/2010

No. 09-20290 b r o a d ly to all civil complaints. 129 S. Ct. 1937, 1949-50 (2009). The district court c o r r e c t ly applied this standard and, in a lengthy order, dismissed the Appellants' fe d e r a l claims because the complaint did not contain enough facts to state a p la u s ib le constitutional or statutory claim for relief, and denied leave to amend a s futile.1 We affirm this finding. F in a lly , we find no error in the award of attorney's fees. A prevailing party in a § 1983 suit may obtain reasonable attorney's fees. See 42 U.S.C. § 1998(b); s e e also Christiansburg Garment Co. v. EEOC, 434 U.S. 412, 410 (1978) (p r e v a ilin g defendant may obtain reasonable attorney's fees). A prevailing d e fe n d a n t , however, must prove that a suit was frivolous or groundless to r e c o v e r such fees. See No Barriers, Inc v. Brinker Chili's Tex., Inc., 262 F.3d 498, 4 9 8 (5th Cir. 2001). A party has no due process right to an evidentiary hearing if the district court has before it all the information upon which the decision to a w a r d fees would be based. See Alizadeh v. Safeway Stores, Inc., 910 F.2d 234, 2 3 6 (5th Cir. 1990). The district found that even when all allegations in the c o m p la in t were taken as true, they "fell far short of what is necessary to state a claim under § 1983." Broyles, 2009 WL 2215781 at *5. The district court then r e v ie w e d briefs from the parties and extensive submissions of billing documents, d e n ie d some fee requests, reduced others, and determined reasonable attorney's fe e s . Id. at *9-18. This was not an abuse of discretion. CONCLUSION T h e judgment of the district court is affirmed. All outstanding motions are d e n ie d as moot.

The district court dismissed the NVRA and HAVA claims because those statutes apply only to federal, not local, elections; dismissed the § 1983 claims because there was no constitutional or federal statutory violation caused by these "garden variety" election irregularities; and dismissed the §§ 1985 and 1986 claims because there was no plausible allegation of racial discrimination. These findings were not in error.

1

5