SELIG v. NORTH WHITEHALL TOWNSHIP ZONING HEARING BOARD et al

Filing 15

ORDER THAT THE MOTION TO DISMISS (DOC. NO. 4 ) IS GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART AS FOLLOWS: A. THE MOTION TO DISMISS, INSOFAR AS THE DEFENDANTS ARGUE THAT THE COURT MUST DISMISS THIS ACTION BASED ON THE ROOKER-FELDMAN DOCTRINE AND YOUNGER ABSTE NTION, IS DENIED; B. THE MOTION TO DISMISS, INSOFAR AS THE DEFENDANTS ARGUE THAT (1) THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS BARS THE PLAINTIFFS CLAIMS BASED ON THE FIRST ZONING BOARD DECISION, AND (2) THE PLAINTIFF HAS FAILED TO STATE A CLAIM FOR VIOLATIONS OF H IS SUBSTANTIVE DUE PROCESS RIGHTS AND A CONSPIRACY TO VIOLATE HIS CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS REGARDING BOTH ZONING HEARING BOARD PROCEEDINGS, IS GRANTED AND THOSE CLAIMS ARE DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE; AND C. THE MOTION TO DISMISS, INSOFAR AS THE DEFENDANTS CONTEND THAT THE PLAINTIFFS COMPLAINT FAILS TO STATE A CLAIM FOR VIOLATIONS OF HIS PROCEDURAL DUE PROCESS RIGHTS RELATING TO THE SECOND ZONING HEARING BOARD PROCEEDING, IS GRANTED AND THOSE CLAIMS ARE DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE; AND THE CLERK OF COURT SHALL MARK THIS CASE AS CLOSED. SIGNED BY HONORABLE EDWARD G. SMITH ON 4/24/18. 4/25/18 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED TO PRO SE, E-MAILED.(mas, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
MICHAEL B. SELIG,
Plaintiff,
v.
NORTH WHITEHALL TOWNSHIP
ZONING HEARING BOARD,
CHAIRMAN RICHARD BENJAMIN, and
EUGENE WOLFGANG,
Defendants.

:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:

CIVIL ACTION NO. 17-4504

ORDER
AND NOW, this 24th day of April, 2018, after considering the motion to dismiss filed by
the defendants, North Whitehall Township Zoning Hearing Board (Doc. No. 4), the response in
opposition to the motion filed by the pro se plaintiff, Michael B. Selig (Doc. No. 7), the reply in
response to the opposition brief filed by the defendants (Doc. No. 9), the sur-reply in response to
the reply brief filed by the plaintiff (Doc. No. 11), the complaint (Doc. No. 1), and the oral
arguments presented to the court on January 14, 2018; and for the reasons set forth in the
separately filed memorandum opinion, it is hereby ORDERED as follows:
1.

The motion to dismiss (Doc. No. 4) is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN

PART as follows:
a.

The motion to dismiss, insofar as the defendants argue that the court must

dismiss this action based on the Rooker-Feldman doctrine and Younger abstention, is
DENIED;
b.

The motion to dismiss, insofar as the defendants argue that (1) the statute

of limitations bars the plaintiff’s claims based on the first zoning board decision, and (2)
the plaintiff has failed to state a claim for violations of his substantive due process rights

and a conspiracy to violate his constitutional rights regarding both zoning hearing board
proceedings, is GRANTED and those claims are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE;
and
c.

The motion to dismiss, insofar as the defendants contend that the

plaintiff’s complaint fails to state a claim for violations of his procedural due process
rights relating to the second zoning hearing board proceeding, is GRANTED and those
claims are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE; and
2.

The clerk of court shall mark this case as CLOSED.

BY THE COURT:

/s/ Edward G. Smith
EDWARD G. SMITH, J.

2