Tippins, et al. v. City of Dadeville, Alabama, et al.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER directing that Defendants' motion for judgment on the pleadings (Doc. # 21 ) on Count I is GRANTED and that Defendants' motion to reconsider is DENIED as moot; further ORDERED that Plaintiffs have until June 4, 2014, to move to amend the Complaint; otherwise final judgment will be entered in favor of Defendants. Signed by Chief Judge William Keith Watkins on 5/28/14. (scn, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
DIANN TIPPINS and GENEVA HEARD, )
) CASE NO. 3:13-CV-368-WKW
CITY OF DADEVILLE, ALABAMA,
MAYOR MIKE INGRAM, in his
capacity as Mayor of Dadeville, and
SHARON HARRELSON, in her capacity )
as an agent of the City of Dadeville,
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
On March 19, 2014, the court entered a Memorandum Opinion and Order
dismissing all claims except Count I, which alleges racial discrimination based on
the denial of a public accommodation in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 2000a. (Doc.
# 18.) Before the court are Defendants’ Motion to Reconsider and Second Motion
to Dismiss. (Doc. # 21.) The second Motion to Dismiss is construed as a motion
for judgment on the pleadings. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(c), (h)(2). Plaintiffs have
responded to the motions.
(Doc. # 24.)
After careful consideration of the
arguments of counsel, the appropriate law, and the allegations set forth in the
Complaint, the court finds that the motion for judgment on the pleadings is due to
be granted and that the motion to reconsider is due to be denied as moot. Plaintiffs
will be given leave to move to amend the Complaint.
Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings1
Count I, the sole remaining claim, arises under § 2000a.
In Count I,
Plaintiffs assert that Defendants subjected them to racial discrimination by refusing
to allow them to purchase a cemetery plot on the “white side” in the City of
Section 2000a(a) provides that “[a]ll persons shall be entitled to the full and
equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, and
accommodations of any place of public accommodation, as defined in this section,
without discrimination or segregation on the ground of race, color, religion, or
Section 2000a(b) sets forth a comprehensive list of those
establishments that qualify as “place[s] of public accommodation.”
Defendants hone in on § 2000a(b)’s comprehensive list, pointing out that the
list does not include cemeteries.
(Doc. # 21, at 3–4.)
They also rely upon
Muhammad v. Bethel-Muhammad, No. 11-0690-WS-B, 2013 WL 5531397 (S.D.
Ala. Oct. 7, 2013), a § 2000a action in which the plaintiff alleged that he had been
denied access to a county courthouse. The Muhammad court found that a county
Judgment on the pleadings pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(c) is proper
“when there are no material facts in dispute and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a
matter of law. All facts alleged in the complaint must be accepted as true and viewed in the light
most favorable to the nonmoving party.” Scott v. Taylor, 405 F.3d 1251, 1253 (11th Cir. 2005)
(internal citation omitted).
courthouse is not a place of “public accommodation,” as defined by the statute. Id.
at *5. The court reasoned:
Only the following sorts of establishments are defined as public
accommodations for purposes of Section 2000a: (1) those that
“provid[e] lodging”; (2) those that are “principally engaged in selling
food for consumption on the premises”; (3) those that are “place[s] of
exhibition or entertainment”; and (4) those that are physically
connected to such establishments and that hold themselves out as
serving patrons of such establishments. § 2000a(b). Courthouses are
not mentioned in the statute, nor do they fall anywhere near the
categories that are listed. In short, “courts are not within the purview
of § 2000a.” Olague v. County of Sacramento, 2012 WL 3638320
at *6 (E.D. Cal. 2012). Because the Dallas County Courthouse is a
not a “place of public accommodation” under Section 2000a, the
plaintiff has no claim under that provision.
Id. Defendants contend that similar to the county courthouse’s plight vis-a-vis
§ 2000a, there is no statutory or case-law authority indicating that a cemetery falls
within the purview of a “place of public accommodation” under § 2000a. In
support of their contrary position, Plaintiffs rely on § 2000a(b)(1), arguing that a
cemetery provides “permanent lodging for dead residents of Dadeville.” (Doc.
# 24, at 1 (emphasis omitted).) Although Plaintiffs’ argument is creative, it raises
metaphysical issues outside the jurisdiction of this court, and it is not persuasive.
Section 2000a(b)(1) provides that a “place of public accommodation”
includes “any inn, hotel, motel, or other establishment which provides lodging to
transient guests, other than an establishment located within a building which
contains not more than five rooms for rent or hire and which is actually occupied
by the proprietor of such establishment as his residence.” A cemetery is not
included in that definition, and no party has cited a decision, and none could be
found, addressing whether a city cemetery is a place of public accommodation
under § 2000a(b)(1). However, the Fourth Circuit has provided some helpful
guidance for the statute’s construction. See Denny v. Elizabeth Arden Salons, Inc.,
456 F.3d 427 (4th Cir. 2006). It reasoned that because § 2000a(b) “sets forth a
comprehensive list of establishments that qualify as a ‘place of public
coverage those categories
establishments not listed.” Id. at 431.
In Denny, the Fourth Circuit rejected the plaintiffs’ argument that a beauty
salon was a covered place of entertainment under § 2000a(b)(3). Relying on the
“plain text of the statute,” the court explained that beauty salons “are not
any of the
of ‘place of public
accommodation.’” Id. (quoting § 2000a(b)(3)). “They also bear little relation to
those places of entertainment that are specifically listed, which strongly suggests
that a salon would not fall within the catchall language ‘other place of exhibition or
entertainment.’” Id. (quoting § 2000a(b)(3)). It explained further,
Title II approached the question of what is an establishment not
through a generic definition, but through a series of extended lists.
Indeed, § 2000a(b) lists no fewer than fourteen examples of
establishments, and subsection (b)(3) lists no fewer than five different
places of entertainment. Barber shops and beauty salons are
sufficiently common and pervasive that we cannot casually attribute
their omission to mere oversight. Indeed, it would have been easy
enough for Congress to have included them.
Id. at 433–34.
The same reasoning holds true for cemeteries. Cemeteries are not included
in any of the categories of establishments listed in § 2000a(b), but it would have
been simple enough for Congress to have added “cemetery” as a category
warranting treatment as a place of public accommodation. Cemeteries also bear
little relation to the places specifically mentioned in § 2000a(b)(1), namely, a hotel,
motel, or inn, strongly indicating that a cemetery would not fall within the catchall
category of establishments that “provide[ ] lodging to transient guests.”
Moreover, there is a rule of statutory construction that words in common use
are to be given their “generally accepted meaning.” Daniel v. Paul, 395 U.S. 298,
308 (1960) (observing that § 2000a(b)’s “language ‘place of entertainment’ should
be given full effect according to its generally accepted meaning”); see also Denny,
456 F.3d at 431 (citing Daniel for its rule of statutory construction). Lodging
means “a place to live,” a “temporary place to stay,” or “a room or rooms in the
house of another used as a place of residence.” Webster’s Third New International
Dictionary 1329 (2002 ed.). A transient guest is a “boarder” to whom “motels
cater chiefly.” Webster’s Third New International Dictionary 2428 (2002 ed.); see
also The American Heritage Dictionary 1833 (4th ed. 2006) (defining “transient”
to include “one [who] is transient, especially a hotel guest or boarder who stays for
only a brief time”). Under the generally accepted meaning, lodging connotes
temporary quarters for the living and “does not fairly approximate,” or even come
close to approximating, a cemetery for the burial of the dead. Denny, 456 F.3d
at 432. And a transient guest denotes a live person who actually can check out of
his or her temporary quarters after having checked in. “Checking into” a cemetery
is a perniciously permanent placement; there is nothing transient about it. The
foregoing leads only to one conclusion – that a cemetery is not “a place of public
accommodation” within the meaning of § 2000a(b).
The authority cited by Plaintiffs does not warrant a contrary result. Plaintiffs
cite Spencer v. Flint Memorial Park Association, 144 N.W. 2d 622 (Mich. App.
1966). Spencer did not address a § 2000a claim, and thus, it is not persuasive
authority as to whether a cemetery qualifies as a place of public accommodation
under § 2000a. Plaintiffs also cite Terry v. Elmwood Cemetery, 307 F. Supp. 369
(N.D. Ala. 1969), for its finding that 42 U.S.C. § 1982 requires that AfricanAmericans and other non-Caucasians “be extended the same rights to purchase
cemetery lots as whites are given.” Id. at 371. However, Plaintiffs have not
alleged a § 1982 claim, and thus, Terry also is not persuasive with respect to the §
2000a claim at issue here.
For these reasons, Defendants’ motion for judgment on the pleadings as to
Count I is due to be granted. Plaintiffs will be permitted, however, to move to
amend their Complaint to replead if they believe that there is a federal cause of
action that would support a viable claim based on the facts alleged. The motion
must set forth the substance of the proposed amendment, and a copy of the
proposed amended complaint must be attached to the motion. See M.D. Ala. LR
15.1 (Dec. 1, 2010). Leave to amend will be “freely give[n]” to Plaintiffs if
“justice so requires.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2).
Motion to Reconsider
Because Count I is due to be dismissed for failure to allege a cognizable
claim, it is unnecessary to address the parties’ arguments as to the official-capacity
claims against the individual defendants, Mayor Ingram and Ms. Harrelson.
Accordingly, Defendants’ motion to reconsider is due to be denied as moot.
Based on the foregoing, it is ORDERED that Defendants’ motion for
judgment on the pleadings (Doc. # 21) on Count I is GRANTED and that
Defendants’ motion to reconsider is DENIED as moot.
It is further ORDERED that Plaintiffs have until June 4, 2014, to move to
amend the Complaint; otherwise final judgment will be entered in favor of
DONE this 28th day of May, 2014.
/s/ W. Keith Watkins
CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?