Albiero v. Goodland Indiana Town of et al
Filing
149
OPINION AND ORDER denying 144 Emergency Motion for Injunctive Relief. Signed by Judge Joseph S Van Bokkelen on 12/14/11. (mlc)
United States District Court
Northern District of Indiana
Hammond Division
ERNEST ALBIERO,
Plaintiff,
v.
THE TOWN OF GOODLAND, INDIANA,
an Indiana Municipal Corporation, et al.,
Defendants.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Civil Action No. 4:11-CV-15 JVB
OPINION AND ORDER
On December 9, 2011, Plaintiff Ernest Albiero filed an Emergency Request for
Injunctive Relief. In the motion, Plaintiff asks that the scheduled demolition of his two buildings
on December 19 be enjoined by this Court. Plaintiff suggests that the destruction of these
buildings “is tantamount to obstruction of Justice.” He also contends, as he has done repeatedly
before, that the buildings were condemned unlawfully. Finally, Plaintiff lists some purportedly
practical considerations why the buildings should be left alone.
Plaintiff’s motion fails in all respects. First, and most importantly, the motion is brought
in the wrong Court. While at one time Plaintiff’s takings claim was part of this case, that claim
had been dismissed on June 7, 2011, because, among other things, Plaintiff had failed to exhaust
state remedies before bringing the claim to federal court. The only remaining claim before this
Court is Plaintiff’s claim that the Town of Goodland and its employees have violated his rights
to be secure from unreasonable searches and seizures. While Plaintiff appears to be under
impression that the allegedly illegal search and seizure voids all of the Town’s subsequent
determinations regarding his properties, he provides no authority for such conclusion. In fact he
could not because the Supreme Court has never applied an exclusionary rule to civil cases.
Second, Plaintiff has not shown that he would suffer irreparable harm without the
injunction or that the injunction is in the public interest. To these points, Plaintiff submits that
one of the buildings is 100 years-old and could be a historical building but does not otherwise
submit evidence that the building is so unique that no money could compensate for its loss.
From all the filings in this case, it is clear that Plaintiff is frustrated with the Town and its
attorney and that the preservation of the buildings is important to Plaintiff. Yet the alleged
grievances related to the alleged unlawful taking of his properties must be or must have been
aired in state courts first. This requirement may not be short-circuited except in some limited
circumstances, and Plaintiff has not established that these circumstances exist in this case.
Accordingly, the Court denies Plaintiff’s Emergency Request for Injunctive Relief (DE
144).
SO ORDERED on December 14, 2011.
s/ Joseph S. Van Bokkelen
Joseph S. Van Bokkelen
United States District Judge
2
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?