Global Tower Assets LLC v. Town of Rome, 1st Cir. (2016)

7/26/2019 Global Tower Assets LLC v. Town of Rome, 1st Cir. (2016)

1/31

United States Court of AppealsFor the First Circuit

No. 15- 1140

GLOBAL TOWER ASSETS, LLC; NORTHEAST WI RELESS NETWORKS, LLC,

Pl ai nt i f f s , Appel l ant s ,

v.

TOWN OF ROME; ROME PLANNI NG BOARD,

Def endant s, Appel l ees.

APPEAL FROM THE UNI TED STATES DI STRI CT COURTFOR THE DI STRI CT OF MAI NE

[ Hon. Geor ge Z. Si ngal , U. S. Di st r i ct J udge]

Bef ore

Bar r on, Sel ya, and Li pez,Ci r cui t J udges.

Er i ca M. J ohanson, wi t h whom Neal F. Pr at t , J onat han A.Pot t l e, and Eat on Peabody, wer e on br i ef , f or appel l ant s.

Theodor e Smal l , wi t h whom I ssacson & Raymond, P. A. was onbr i ef , f or appel l ees.

J anuar y 8, 2016


2/31

- 2 -

BARRON, Circuit Judge. The Tel ecommuni cat i ons Act of

1996 ( "TCA") pr ovi des r el i ef t o t hose who ar e deni ed per mi ssi on t o

bui l d t el ecommuni cat i ons f aci l i t i es at t he st at e or l ocal l evel .

The TCA makes such r el i ef avai l abl e i f st at e or l ocal l and use

aut hor i t i es have deni ed such per mi ssi on t hr ough " f i nal act i on. "

The TCA, however , does not def i ne what count s as " f i nal act i on. "

The r esul t has been di sput es - - l i ke t hi s one - - over whet her a

deni al i s a "f i nal act i on. "

We have consi dered t hi s i ssue once bef ore. We hel d t hen

t hat a l ocal zoni ng boar d' s deni al of a speci al use per mi t and

var i ance t o bui l d a wi r el ess t ower di d const i t ut e "f i nal act i on. "

We recogni zed t hat t he boar d' s deni al coul d have been r evi ewed i n

st at e cour t under st at e l aw at t he t i me t hat t he TCA cl ai m had

been f i l ed. But we expl ai ned t hat Congr ess di d not i nt end t o make

TCA r el i ef avai l abl e onl y once t hat j udi ci al process had r un i t s

cour se. We concl uded t hat t he zoni ng boar d' s deni al count ed as

" f i nal act i on" because t he deni al mar ked t he end of t he

admi ni st r at i ve pr ocess. As a r esul t , we per mi t t ed t he TCA cl ai m

t o pr oceed as a chal l enge t o " f i nal act i on. " See Omni poi nt Hol di ngs

v. Ci t y of Cr anst on, 586 F. 3d 38 ( 1st Ci r . 2009) .

Thi s t i me t he i ssue i s somewhat di f f er ent . I t concer ns

whet her t he admi ni st r at i ve pr ocess i t sel f has come t o an end. The

i ssue ar i ses because t he appel l ant s f i l ed t hei r TCA chal l enge t o


3/31

- 3 -

a l ocal pl anni ng board deci si on at a t i me when t hat deci si on was

st i l l subj ect t o f ur t her r evi ew by a l ocal boar d of appeal s.

The appel l ant s cont end t hat t he oppor t uni t y t o br i ng an

admi ni st r at i ve appeal shoul d not pr event t hei r TCA chal l enge f r om

goi ng f or war d. But , i n keepi ng wi t h basi c pr i nci pl es of

admi ni st r at i ve l aw and t he pur poses of t he TCA, we di sagr ee. As

a mat t er of st at e l aw, t he pl anni ng boar d' s deni al may be revi ewed

i n st at e cour t onl y af t er t he l ocal boar d of appeal s has exer ci sed

i t s own i ndependent r evi ew. As a r esul t , we agr ee wi t h t he

appel l ees - - t he pl anni ng boar d and t he Town of Rome, Mai ne - -

t hat t he pl anni ng boar d' s deci si on does not mar k t he end of t he

admi ni st r at i ve pr ocess and t hus i s not a " f i nal act i on" f or TCA

pur poses.

We t hus af f i r m t he Di str i ct Cour t ' s di smi ssal of

appel l ant s' TCA cl ai ms. We al so af f i r m t he Di st r i ct Cour t ' s

di smi ssal of appel l ant s' separ at e f eder al const i t ut i onal due

pr ocess chal l enges, as we hol d t hat t he compl ai nt f ai l ed t o pl ead

f acts suf f i ci ent t o st at e such cl ai ms.

I.

The appel l ant s ar e Nor t heast Wi r el ess Net wor ks, LLC and

Gl obal Tower Asset s, LLC ( "Appl i cant s" ) . Nor t heast Wi r el ess hol ds

a Federal Communi cat i ons Commi ss i on ( "FCC") l i cense t o pr ovi de

per sonal communi cat i ons ser vi ce - - a f or m of wi r el ess

communi cat i ons t echnol ogy - - i n and around t he Town of Rome, Mai ne


4/31

- 4 -

( "Rome") , whi ch i s one of t he t wo appel l ees. Gl obal Tower i s a

company t hat assi st s wi r el ess compani es wi t h l ocat i ng and

const r uct i ng wi r el ess communi cat i ons t ower s.

Toget her , t he Appl i cant s acqui r ed a l easehol d i nter est

i n l and i n Rome, on whi ch l and t hey seek t o bui l d a wi r el ess

communi cat i ons t ower . Rome r egul at es t he si t i ng of wi r el ess t ower s

vi a t he "Town of Rome Wi r el ess Tel ecommuni cat i ons Faci l i t y Si t i ng

Or di nance" ( t he "Or di nance") .

The Or di nance r equi r es appl i cant s f i r st t o seek

per mi ssi on t o bui l d f r om t he Rome Pl anni ng Boar d ( t he "Pl anni ng

Boar d") , whi ch, al ong wi t h Rome, i s t he ot her appel l ee. The

Or di nance f ur t her pr ovi des t hat " [ a] dmi ni st r at i ve appeal s and

var i ance appl i cat i ons submi t t ed under t hi s Or di nance shal l be

subj ect t o t he st andards and pr ocedur es est abl i shed by t he Town of

Rome Boar d of Appeal s" ( t he "Boar d of Appeal s" ) .

On Apr i l 8, 2013, t he Appl i cant s sought per mi ssi on f r om

t he Pl anni ng Boar d t o bui l d t he t ower . The Pl anni ng Boar d hel d

i t s f i r st meet i ng t o di scuss t he appl i cat i on on May 20, 2013. Over

t he cour se of t he next sever al mont hs, t he Pl anni ng Boar d hel d a

number of addi t i onal meet i ngs.

Dur i ng t hi s t i me, t he Appl i cant s obj ect ed r epeat edl y t o

t he Pl anni ng Boar d' s pr ocedur es and to what t he Appl i cant s

per cei ved t o be bi as agai nst t he si t i ng of t he t ower on t he par t

of Pl anni ng Boar d members whom t he Appl i cant s al l ege bel onged t o


5/31

- 5 -

a l ocal pr i vat e or gani zat i on, t he Bel gr ade Regi on Conservat i on

Associ at i on ( t he "BRCA") . Over t he cour se of t he appl i cat i on

pr ocess , t he Appl i cant s and t he Pl anni ng Board agr eed on f our

occasi ons t o ext end t he deadl i ne f or t he Pl anni ng Boar d t o make

i t s deci si on on t he appl i cat i on.

Febr uar y 10, 2014, was t he f i nal day of t he l ast agr eed

upon extensi on. On t hat day, t he Pl anni ng Boar d met , del i ber at ed,

and vot ed t o ( a) adopt some of t he f i ndi ngs of f act and concl usi ons

of l aw t hat t he Pl anni ng Boar d' s counsel had pr epar ed i n advance,

( b) adopt some of t he speci f i c f i ndi ngs i ncl uded i n sect i on 10 of

t he Or di nance, and ( c) f i nd t hat t he appl i cat i on compor t ed wi t h

some of t he requi r ement s set f or t h i n sect i on 11 of t he Or di nance.

The Pl anni ng Board t hen conduct ed a "compl et eness

r evi ew, " dur i ng whi ch the Pl anni ng Boar d det er mi ned t hat t he

Appl i cant s had not submi t t ed wr i t t en evi dence of t he need f or t he

t ower . Last l y, t he Pl anni ng Boar d vot ed t o deny t he Appl i cant s'

appl i cat i on. Twent y- ei ght days l at er , on Mar ch 10, 2014, t he

Pl anni ng Boar d i ssued a one page "deci si on" t hat memor i al i zed t he

Febr uar y 10 vot es.

The next day, t he Appl i cant s f i l ed sui t i n t he Uni t ed

St at es Di st r i ct Cour t f or t he Di st r i ct of Mai ne. The compl ai nt

al l eged var i ous cl ai ms under t he TCA, t he Due Pr ocess Cl ause of

t he Uni t ed St at es Const i t ut i on, and Mai ne l aw, bot h st at ut or y and

consti t ut i onal .


6/31

- 6 -

As t o t he TCA, t he compl ai nt al l eged t hat t he Pl anni ng

Boar d' s deci si on vi ol at ed t he r equi r ement s of 332( c) ( 7) ( B) i n

t hat t he deci si on ( 1) unr easonabl y di scr i mi nat ed agai nst t he

pr ovi der s of f unct i onal l y equi val ent ser vi ces; ( 2) had t he ef f ect

of pr ohi bi t i ng t he pr ovi si on of wi r el ess ser vi ces; and ( 3) was not

" i n wr i t i ng and suppor t ed by subst ant i al evi dence on a wr i t t en

r ecor d. " The compl ai nt al so al l eged t hat t he Pl anni ng Boar d had

unr easonabl y del ayed t aki ng act i on on t he appl i cat i on - - and t hus

vi ol at ed 332( b) ( 7) ( B) ( i i ) - - by f ai l i ng "t o i ssue a wr i t t en

deci si on wi t hi n the mut ual l y agr eed upon revi ew per i od. "

As t o t he f eder al const i t ut i onal cl ai m, t he Appl i cant s

al l eged t hat t he Pl anni ng Boar d' s pr ocedur es - - i ncl udi ng ex par t e

communi cat i ons - - and per cei ved bi as on t he par t of t hose Pl anni ng

Boar d member s who al so bel onged t o t he BRCA deni ed t hem a f ai r and

i mpar t i al t r i bunal , as wel l as not i ce and an oppor t uni t y t o be

hear d.

Rome moved to di smi ss t he compl ai nt under bot h Rul e

12( b) ( 1) and Rul e 12( b) ( 6) . Anal yzi ng t he mot i on under Rul e

12(b)(6), 1 t he Di st r i ct Cour t di smi ssed t he maj or i t y of t he TCA

1 The Di st r i ct Cour t not ed t hat i n Omni poi nt , 586 F. 3d at 45n. 4, we l ef t open t he quest i on of whet her t he TCA' s " f i nal act i on"r equi r ement was j ur i sdi ct i onal . Gl obal Tower Asset s, 2014 WL3784233 at *1 n. 2. Fi ndi ng t hat t he resul t woul d be the same under12( b) ( 1) or 12( b) ( 6) , t he Di st r i ct Cour t si mi l ar l y avoi ded t hequest i on whet her t he "f i nal act i on" r equi r ement i s j ur i sdi ct i onaland anal yzed t he mot i on under 12( b) ( 6) . I d. We do t he same.


7/31

- 7 -

cl ai ms, wi t hout pr ej udi ce, because t he Appl i cant s had not appeal ed

t o t he Boar d of Appeal s at t he t i me t hat t he Appl i cant s f i l ed t hei r

TCA cl ai m. Gl obal Tower Asset s, LLC. v. Town of Rome, Me. , No.

1: 14cv00085GZS, 2014 WL 3784233, *10 ( D. Me. J ul y 31, 2014) .

For t hat r eason, t he Di st r i ct Cour t hel d t hat t he Pl anni ng Boar d' s

deni al of t he appl i cat i on was not a "f i nal act i on" t hat Appl i cant s

wer e ent i t l ed t o chal l enge under t he TCA. I d. ; see 47 U. S. C.

332( c)( 7) ( B) ( v) .

The Di st r i ct Cour t al so di smi ssed t he unr easonabl e

del ay cl ai m t hat t he Appl i cant s br ought under t he TCA. Gl obal

Tower Asset s, 2014 WL 3784233 at *7. The Di st r i ct Court concl uded

t hat t he Appl i cant s f ai l ed t o pl ead f act s adequat e t o al l ege t hat

t he Pl anni ng Boar d had not i ssued a wr i t t en deci si on. I d.

( "Despi t e t hi s al l egat i on, Pl ai nt i f f s expr essl y al l ege t hat t he

Pl anni ng Boar d ' adopt ed f i ndi ngs of f act and concl usi ons of l aw

concer ni ng t he Appl i cat i on' pr i or t o t he expi r at i on of t he agr eed

upon r evi ew per i od and t hen det ai l t went y- f our of t hose f i ndi ngs

and concl usi ons. Ther ef or e, Pl ai nt i f f s' cl ai m i n par agr aph 95 of

t he Compl ai nt i s bel i ed by thei r f act ual own [ si c]

al l egat i ons. ") ( ci t at i ons omi t t ed) ( quot i ng compl ai nt ) .

Wi t h r espect t o the Appl i cant s' Due Pr ocess cl ai ms ( bot h

pr ocedur al and subst ant i ve) , t he Di st r i ct Cour t di smi ssed t hem

wi t h pr ej udi ce. I d. at *11. The Di st r i ct Cour t r ul ed t hat t he

al l egat i ons set f or t h i n t he compl ai nt di d not r i se t o t he l evel


8/31

- 8 -

of a f eder al const i t ut i onal vi ol at i on. I d. Havi ng t hus di sposed

of al l of t he f eder al cl ai ms, t he Di st r i ct Cour t decl i ned t o

exer ci se suppl ement al j ur i sdi ct i on over t he remai ni ng st at e l aw

cl ai ms. I d. The Di st r i ct Cour t t her ef or e di smi ssed t hose st at e

cl ai ms wi t hout pr ej udi ce. I d.

The Appl i cant s now br i ng t hi s appeal . We st ar t wi t h

t hei r chal l enge t o t he Pl anni ng Boar d' s deni al of t hei r appl i cat i on

under t he TCA. We t hen consi der t hei r f eder al const i t ut i onal

chal l enge.

II.

The Appl i cant s' compl ai nt al l eges t hat t he Pl anni ng

Boar d' s deci si on vi ol at ed t he TCA because i t s deni al unr easonabl y

di scr i mi nat ed bet ween pr ovi der s of f unct i onal l y equi val ent

ser vi ces, ef f ect i vel y pr ohi bi t ed t he pr ovi si on of wi r el ess

servi ces, and was not i n wr i t i ng or suppor t ed by subst ant i al

evi dence on a wr i t t en r ecord. See 47 U. S. C.

332( c)( 7) ( B) ( i ) &( i i i ) . The di sposi t i ve quest i on f or us as t o t hese

cl ai ms, however , i s whether t hey may be hear d at al l . And

r esol ut i on of t hat quest i on t ur ns on whet her t he Pl anni ng Boar d' s

deci si on const i t ut es a "f i nal acti on . . . by a St at e or l ocal

gover nment or any i nst r ument al i t y t her eof . " I d. 332( c) ( 7) ( B) ( v) .

Resol ut i on of t hat same quest i on i s al so pot ent i al l y

det er mi nat i ve of t he onl y ot her TCA cl ai m t hat i s bef or e us: t he

Appl i cant s' al l egat i on of unr easonabl e del ay under 47 U. S. C.


9/31

- 9 -

332( c) ( 7) ( B) ( i i ) . Thi s cl ai m r ests on t he Appl i cant s ' al l egat i on

t hat t he Pl anni ng Boar d never i ssued a wr i t t en deci si on, as

332( c) ( 7) ( B) ( i i i ) r equi res .

The "wr i t t en deci si on" r equi r ement appear s t o appl y,

however , onl y t o act i ons t hat ar e " f i nal " wi t hi n t he meani ng of

t he TCA. I ndeed, i t woul d be odd f or t hat r equi r ement t o appl y t o

an i nt er i m deci si on. The onl y deci si ons that may be chal l enged

under t he TCA, af t er al l , ar e ones t hat ar e "f i nal . " Nor do t he

Appl i cant s make any devel oped argument t o t he cont r ary. Thus, i f

t he Pl anni ng Boar d' s deci si on i s not a " f i nal act i on" because no

appeal was t aken t o t he Boar d of Appeal s, t hen any del ay i n t he

Boar d' s i ssuance of a "wr i t t en deci si on" woul d be of no moment .

Rather , t he onl y del ay t hat mi ght mat t er woul d be any del ay

r esul t i ng f r om t he Boar d of Appeal s' f ai l ur e t o have i ssued a

t i mel y "wr i t t en deci si on. "

The Appl i cant s do not ar gue i n t hei r br i ef i ng t o us,

however , t hat t hey asser t an unr easonabl e del ay cl ai mt hat i s based

on t he f act t hat t he Boar d of Appeal s f ai l ed t o t ake " f i nal act i on"

or t o i ssue a "wr i t t en deci si on" i n a suf f i ci ent l y t i mel y f ashi on.

And, at or al ar gument , counsel f or t he Appl i cant s di scl ai med any

i nt ent i on t o make such a cl ai m on appeal . Thus, we t r eat any such

cl ai m as wai ved. The r esul t i s t hat we may af f i r m t he Di st r i ct

Cour t ' s di smi ssal of t he onl y unr easonabl e del ay cl ai m t hat i s

bef or e us on t he gr ound t hat t he Pl anni ng Boar d' s deni al does not


10/31

- 10 -

count as " f i nal act i on, " see Wash. Legal Found. v. Mass. Bar

Found. , 993 F. 2d 962, 971 ( 1st Ci r . 1993) ( "We may af f i r m t he

di st r i ct cour t ' s or der on any i ndependent l y suf f i ci ent gr ounds. ") ,

assumi ng, t hat i s, we concl ude t hat t he deni al does not .

I n sum, i n eval uat i ng t he di smi ssal of t he Appl i cant s'

TCA cl ai ms, we address onl y whet her t he Pl anni ng Board' s deni al of

t he appl i cat i on i n t hi s case const i t ut es "f i nal act i on. " And t hat

i s because our concl usi on t hat t he Pl anni ng Boar d' s deni al does

not const i t ut e "f i nal act i on" suf f i ces t o suppor t t he af f i r mance

of t he di smi ssal of al l of t he TCA cl ai ms at i ssue i n t hi s appeal .

III.

Bef or e we di r ect l y of f er our r easons f or r eachi ng t he

concl usi on t hat t he Pl anni ng Boar d' s deni al i s not "f i nal act i on"

under t he TCA, we need t o provi de some i mpor t ant backgr ound. We

t hus begi n by descr i bi ng i n more general t erms what count s as

" f i nal act i on" under t he TCA. We t hen appl y t hat " f i nal act i on"

r equi r ement t o t he case at hand.

A.

As usual , we st ar t wi t h t he r el evant st at ut or y text .

See Sepul veda v. Uni t ed St at es, 330 F. 3d 55, 64 ( 1st Ci r . 2003) .

The TCA provi des t hat : "Any per son adver sel y af f ect ed by any f i nal

act i on or f ai l ur e t o act by a St at e or l ocal gover nment or any

i nst r ument al i t y t her eof t hat i s i nconsi st ent wi t h t hi s

subpar agr aph may, wi t hi n 30 days af t er such act i on or f ai l ur e to


11/31

- 11 -

act , commence an act i on i n any cour t of compet ent j ur i sdi ct i on. "

47 U. S. C. 332( c) ( 7) ( B) ( v) .

I n Omni poi nt , we not ed t hat " f i nal act i on" i s not def i ned

i n t he TCA. 586 F. 3d at 46. We expl ai ned, however , t hat " [ t ] he

t er ms ' f i nal ' and ' f i nal act i on' have speci al meani ng i n t he l aw, "

and t hat "we assume Congress knew t he content of backgr ound l aw

when l egi sl at i ng. " I d. ( i nt er nal quot at i on mar ks and ci t at i ons

omi t t ed) .

Si gni f i cant l y, t he f i nal i t y of admi ni str at i ve act i on

ser ves as a pr er equi si t e t o obt ai ni ng j udi ci al r el i ef under not

onl y t he TCA, but al so the st at ut e t hat gener al l y gover ns t he

r evi ew of f eder al admi ni st r at i ve agency act i on, t he Admi ni st r at i ve

Procedur e Act ( "APA") . See Tel ecommuni cat i ons Act of 1996,

H. R. Rep. No. 104458, at 209 ( 1996) ( Conf . Rep. ) , as r epr i nt ed i n

1996 U. S. C. C. A. N. 124, 223 ( cl ar i f yi ng t hat " f i nal act i on" means

a " f i nal admi ni st r at i ve act i on at t he St at e or l ocal gover nment

l evel so t hat a par t y can commence act i on . . . r at her t han wai t i ng

f or t he exhaust i on of any i ndependent st ate cour t r emedy otherwi se

r equi r ed. " ( emphasi s added) ) ; 5 U. S. C. 704. And t he TCA uses

wor ds near l y i dent i cal t o t hose used i n t he APA i n set t i ng f or t h

i t s f i nal i t y r equi r ement : "f i nal act i on. " Compar e 47 U. S. C.

332( c) ( 7) ( b) ( v) wi t h 5 U. S. C. 704 ( usi ng t he t er m "f i nal agency

act i on") .


12/31

- 12 -

Thus, Omni poi nt drew upon t he meani ng of " f i nal " agency

act i on under t he APA i n const r ui ng t he TCA' s own f i nal i t y

r equi r ement . I d. at 45- 47. And r ecent l y, t he Supr eme Cour t di d

t he same. See T- Mobi l e Sout h, LLC v. Ci t y of Roswel l , Ga. , __

U. S. __ , 135 S. Ct . 808, 817 n. 4 ( 2015) ( r el yi ng on t he Supr eme

Cour t ' s anal ysi s of t he APA' s f i nal i t y r equi r ement i n Bennet t v.

Spear , 520 U. S. 154, 178 ( 1996) ) . Accor di ngl y, we f ol l ow t hat

same cour se her e, j ust as cour t s usual l y have l ooked t o t he APA' s

f i nal i t y r equi r ement when const r ui ng f eder al st at ut es t hat

condi t i on j udi ci al r evi ew on t he f i nal i t y of agency act i on but

t hat do not i ndependent l y def i ne what count s as f i nal act i on. See

I mpact Ener gy Resour ces v. Sal azar , 693 F. 3d 1239, 1254 (10t h Ci r .

2012) ( Seymour , J . , concur r i ng) ( "When i nt er pr et i ng the meani ng of

t he wor d ' f i nal ' i n st at ut es usi ng t hat t er m i n r el at i on t o

j udi ci al r evi ew of agenci es, cour t s commonl y appl y t he APA' s

meani ng of ' f i nal . ' . . . Feder al cour t s r egul ar l y appl y t he APA' s

meani ng of ' f i nal ' t o ot her st at ut es usi ng t he t er m i n r el at i on t o

j udi ci al r evi ew of agency act i ons and deci si ons. " ) ; i d. at 1262

( Tymkovi ch, J . , di ssent i ng) ( st at i ng t hat "[ o] t her cour t s have

appl i ed t he APA def i ni t i on of ' f i nal ' t o ot her st at ut es usi ng t hat

wor d i n t he cont ext of j udi ci al r evi ew" and col l ect i ng cases) .

B.

I n det er mi ni ng t he meani ng of t he TCA' s " f i nal act i on"

r equi r ement , we not e t hat a key aspect of f i nal i t y under t he APA


13/31

- 13 -

i s whet her t he agency act i on at i ssue "mar k[ s] t he ' consummat i on'

of t he agency' s deci si onmaki ng pr ocess" or i s i nst ead "of a mer el y

t ent at i ve or i nt er l ocut or y nat ur e. " Bennet t , 520 U. S. at 178.

That was t he aspect of f i nal i t y t hat was at i ssue i n Omni poi nt ,

and t hat i s t he aspect of f i nal i t y t hat i s at i ssue her e. 2

I n Omni poi nt , i t was easy t o concl ude t hat t hi s aspect

of f i nal i t y had been sat i sf i ed. Ther e was no di sput e i n Omni poi nt

over whet her t he admi ni st r at i ve agency - - t he zoni ng boar d of

r evi ew - - had come t o a f i nal and def i ni t i ve j udgment . I t cl ear l y

had. The onl y i ssue was whet her t he avai l abi l i t y of a st at e

j udi ci al r emedy prevent ed t hat ot her wi se def i ni t i ve admi ni st r at i ve

deci si on f r om qual i f yi ng as "f i nal act i on. " Omni poi nt , 586 F. 3d

at 45- 46. Because the TCA made cl ear t hat a " f i nal act i on" was "a

f i nal admi ni st r at i ve act i on, " see i d. at 47 ( quot i ng

Tel ecommuni cat i ons Act of 1996, H. R. Rep. No. 104458, at 209 ( 1996)

( Conf . Rep. ) , as r epr i nt ed i n 1996 U. S. C. C. A. N. 124, 223) ( emphasi s

added) , we hel d t hat t he avai l abi l i t y of j udi ci al r evi ew di d not

suf f i ce t o str i p t he zoni ng boar d' s deci s i on of i t s f i nal i t y. I d.

Her e, t he case f or f i ndi ng f i nal i t y i s not so

st r ai ght f orward. The Pl anni ng Boar d may have r endered a deci si on

t hat r epr esent s i t s def i ni t i ve j udgment . But t hat deci si on i s

2 The ot her aspect of f i nal i t y, not at i ssue her e, i s whet hert he di sput ed act i on was " one by whi ch ' r i ght s or obl i gat i ons havebeen det er mi ned, ' or f r om whi ch ' l egal consequences wi l l f l ow. ' "Bennet t , 520 U. S. at 178.


14/31

- 14 -

st i l l subj ect t o an appeal t o t he Boar d of Appeal s. I t i s t hus

t he pr ospect of r el i ef vi a admi ni st r at i ve ( r at her t han j udi ci al )

appeal t hat gr ounds t he cont ent i on t hat t here has not yet been a

" f i nal admi ni st r at i ve act i on. " See Tel ecommuni cat i ons Act of

1996, H. R. Rep. No. 104458, at 209 ( 1996) ( Conf . Rep. ) , as r epr i nt ed

i n 1996 U. S. C. C. A. N. 124, 223. I n consequence, t he case f or

quest i oni ng t he f i nal i t y of t he admi ni st r at i ve deci si on at i ssue

- - t he Pl anni ng Boar d' s deni al of t he appel l ant s' appl i cat i on t o

bui l d - - i s consi der abl y st r onger t han i t was i n Omni poi nt .

To be sure, as a gener al mat t er , Congress does not i ntend

f or t he avai l abi l i t y of addi t i onal avenues of admi ni st r at i ve

r el i ef t o pr event f eder al agency act i on f r om count i ng as " f i nal "

agency act i on under t he APA. See 5 U. S. C. 704. The Supr eme

Cour t made t hat much cl ear i n i nt er pr et i ng t he APA' s f i nal act i on

r equi r ement i n Dar by v. Ci sner os, 509 U. S. 137 ( 1993) . Dar by

expl ai ned t hat , as a general mat t er , cour t s may not make t he

exhaust i on of f ur t her avenues of admi ni st r at i ve r el i ef t hat t he

agency may make avai l abl e a pr econdi t i on t o secur i ng j udi ci al

r el i ef under t he APA, such as by avai l i ng onesel f of t he

oppor t uni t y t o r equest r econsi der at i on by t he agency or by t aki ng

an admi ni st r at i ve appeal t hat t he agency may per mi t . See i d. at

154.

Darby al so noted, however , t hat t he APA expr essl y

qual i f i es t hi s gener al r ul e. See i d. ; see al so 5 U. S. C. 704.


15/31

- 15 -

Darby expl ai ned t hat somet i mes f ederal agenci es set up a two- st age

admi ni st r at i ve pr ocess f or t aki ng "f i nal act i on, " i n whi ch t he

agency pr ovi des by r ul e t hat an i ni t i al agency deci si on must be

r evi ewed admi ni st r at i vel y bef or e t he agency i nt ends f or i t t o

r epr esent t he agency' s l ast wor d. 509 U. S. at 154; 5 U. S. C.

704. And, Darby made cl ear , when agenci es opt t o make f i nal

admi ni st r at i ve det er mi nat i ons i n t hi s t wo- st age way, t hei r i ni t i al

admi ni st r at i ve deci si ons ar e not "f i nal " - - and t hus not subj ect

t o j udi ci al r evi ew under t he APA - - at l east i f t hat i ni t i al agency

deci si on has not i t sel f al t er ed t he l egal st at us quo. See Dar by,

509 U. S. at 154; 5 U. S. C. 704; Manny I ndus. v. Sec' y of Labor ,

432 F. Supp. 88, 89 ( C. D. Cal . 1977) ( "An i ni t i al deci si on pr obabl y

shoul d be consi der ed i noper at i ve even t hough t he cl ai m i s r ef used,

t he l i cense i s deni ed, or t he suspensi on or der i s not l i f t ed. ")

( quot i ng 3 Kennet h Cul p Davi s, Admi ni st r at i ve Law Tr eat i se, 20. 08

at 106) af f ' d Manny I ndus. v. Sec' y of Labor , 596 F. 2d 409 ( 9t h

Ci r . 1979) ; At t or ney Gener al ' s Manual on t he Admi ni st r at i ve

Procedur e Act 105 ( 1947) ; Kenneth Cul p Davi s, Admi ni st r at i ve Law

Doct r i nes of Exhaust i on of Remedi es, Ri peness f or Revi ew, and

Pr i mar y J ur i sdi ct i on: 1, 28 Tex. L. Rev. 168, 193 ( 1949) ( same) .

C.

Agai nst t hi s backgr ound, what r emai ns f or us t o deci de

i n const r ui ng t he TCA' s " f i nal act i on" r equi r ement i s t he

f ol l owi ng. We must deci de whet her t her e i s any speci al r eason t o


16/31

- 16 -

const r ue t he TCA' s r equi r ement t o di ver ge f r om t he APA' s, such

t hat "St at e[ s] or l ocal gover nment [ s] or any i nst r ument al i t [ i es]

t her eof , " see 47 U. S. C. 332( c) ( 7) ( B) ( v) , may not r each a "f i nal

admi ni st r at i ve act i on" i n t wo st ages r at her t han one, even t hough

f ederal agenci es may do so under t he APA. I n our vi ew, nothi ng

about t he TCA suggest s t hat i t shoul d be const r ued t o br eak wi t h

t he APA i n t hi s r egar d.

As we have not ed, t he phr asi ng of t he TCA' s f i nal i t y

r equi r ement , "f i nal act i on, " i s near l y i dent i cal t o t he APA' s.

Compar e 47 U. S. C. 332( c) ( 7) ( b) ( v) ( usi ng t he t er m" f i nal act i on")

wi t h 5 U. S. C. 704 ( usi ng t he t er m "f i nal agency act i on") . Thus,

t he t ext of t he TCA does not i ndi cat e t hat Congr ess i nt ended t o

pr event st at e and l ocal gover nment s f r om st r uct ur i ng t hei r

admi ni st r at i ve pr ocesses f or maki ng " f i nal " det er mi nat i ons i n t he

same way t hat t he APA per mi t s f eder al agenci es t o st r uct ur e t hei r s.

The TCA' s l egi sl at i ve hi st or y, mor eover , accor ds wi t h

t hi s i nt er pr et at i on of t he t ext . The conf er ence r epor t t o t he TCA

makes cl ear t hat t he pr ocess t hr ough whi ch a "f i nal admi ni st r at i ve

act i on" i s t aken does not i ncl ude the pr ocess t hr ough whi ch a st at e

j udi ci al r emedy may be secur ed. See Tel ecommuni cat i ons Act of

1996, H. R. Rep. No. 104458, at 209 ( 1996) ( Conf . Rep. ) , as r epr i nt ed

i n 1996 U. S. C. C. A. N. 124, 223. I n doi ng so, however , t hat r epor t

i n no way suggest s t hat st at es and l ocal i t i es are const r ai ned i n

how t hey may choose t o st r uct ur e the pr ocess t hr ough whi ch t hey


17/31

- 17 -

t ake " f i nal admi ni st r at i ve act i on" t hat may t hen be r evi ewed i n

cour t . See i d. And, consi st ent wi t h t he conf er ence r epor t , t he

TCA' s "desi gn, st r uct ure, and pur pose, " Omni poi nt , 586 F. 3d at 46

( quot i ng Cabl evi si on of Bos. , I nc. v. Pub. I mpr ovement Comm' n, 184

F. 3d 88, 101 ( 1st Ci r . 1999) ) , al l suppor t r eadi ng t hi s st at ut e' s

" f i nal act i on" r equi r ement , l i ke t he APA' s, t o af f or d gover nment

t he power t o make " f i nal " admi ni st r at i ve deci si ons t hr ough a t wo-

st age pr ocess.

A key pur pose of t he TCA, af t er al l , i s t o pr eser ve st at e

and l ocal l and use aut hor i t y. See ATC Real t y, LLC v. Town of

Ki ngst on, N. H. , 303 F. 3d 91, 94 ( 1st Ci r . 2002) ( not i ng t hat t he

TCA embodi es, i n par t , " t he desi r e t o preser ve st at e and l ocal

cont r ol over zoni ng mat t er s" ) . I ndeed, t he ver y sect i on of t he

TCA t hat cr eates t he r el evant cause of act i on i s ent i t l ed

"Preser vat i on of l ocal zoni ng aut hor i t y. " 47 U. S. C. 332( c) ( 7) .

That pur pose i s obvi ousl y wel l ser ved by const r ui ng t he

TCA t o r espect a st at e or l ocal i t y' s choi ce not t o t r eat an i ni t i al

admi ni st r at i ve deci si on as t he l ast wor d when t hat deci si on must

be r evi ewed admi ni st r at i vel y bef or e i t may be r evi ewed j udi ci al l y.

Ot her wi se, we woul d be at t r i but i ng t o Congr ess an i nt ent i on t o

t r eat a l ocal agency' s deci si on as i f i t wer e mor e def i ni t i ve t han

st at e or l ocal l aw i t sel f appear s to t r eat i t . Thi s const r ucti on

of t he TCA al so pr eserves t he aut hor i t y of st at e and l ocal l and

use aut hor i t y i n anot her way. Such a const r uct i on gi ves st at e and


18/31

- 18 -

l ocal act or s mor e r oom t o r esol ve l and use di sput es on t hei r own,

wi t hout j udges i nt er veni ng and i mposi ng the f eder al st andar ds t hat

t he TCA set s f or t h.

To be sure, anot her ( and somewhat compet i ng) pur pose of

t he TCA i s t o ensur e t he avai l abi l i t y of pr ompt f eder al st at ut or y

r el i ef f r om l ocal l and use deci si ons t hat undul y i mpede t he bui l d-

out of much needed i nf or mat i on i nf r ast r uct ur e. See Omni poi nt , 586

F. 3d at 47 ( "The Act st r esses t he need f or speedi l y depl oyi ng

t el ecommuni cat i ons and seeks t o get pr ompt r esol ut i on of di sput es

under t he Act . " ) ; ATC Real t y, 303 F. 3d at 94. But t hi s pur pose i s

not undul y f r ust r at ed by const r ui ng t he " f i nal act i on" r equi r ement

t o per mi t st at es and l ocal i t i es t o depl oy a t wo- st age

admi ni st r at i ve pr ocess f or r ender i ng a deci si on t hat may t hen be

r evi ewed j udi ci al l y. Such a t wo- st age pr ocess may put of f t he

oppor t uni t y f or j udi ci al r evi ew f or a whi l e. But t hat ver y pr ocess

al so may i ncr ease t he chance t hat an ot her wi se er r oneous deni al of

a bui l di ng appl i cat i on wi l l be i dent i f i ed and r ect i f i ed, t her eby

obvi at i ng t he need f or i ni t i at i ng t he l engt hy j udi ci al r evi ew

pr ocess i n t he f i r st pl ace.

Fi nal l y, t her e i s l i t t l e r i sk t hat , by constr ui ng t he

TCA' s " f i nal act i on" r equi r ement i n t hi s manner , we wi l l enabl e

st at es and l ocal i t i es t o under mi ne t he TCA' s ef f ect i ve oper at i on.

The TCA' s unr easonabl e del ay provi si on pl aces an out er l i mi t on

t he t i me that a st ate or l ocal government may t ake t o come to a


19/31

- 19 -

"f i nal " deci si on. See 47 U. S. C. 332( c)( 7) ( B) ( i i ) . That

pr ovi si on, as i nt er pr et ed by t he FCC, pr esumpt i vel y gi ves st at e

and l ocal government s onl y 150 days t o come t o a deci si on on

appl i cat i ons t o const r uct wi r el ess f aci l i t i es, subj ect t o

extensi on by mut ual agr eement . I n r e Pet i t i on f or Decl ar at or y

Rul i ng, 24 FCC Rcd. 13994, 13995 ( 2009) ; see Ci t y of Ar l i ngt on,

Tx. v. FCC, 569 U. S. __, 133 S. Ct . 1863 ( 2013) ( uphol di ng t he FCC' s

i nt er pr et at i on) . And t hat pr esumpt i ve t i me- l i mi t appl i es no

mat t er how cumbersome or st r eaml i ned a st ate or l ocal government

( or an i nst r ument al i t y ther eof ) chooses t o make i t s admi ni st r at i ve

pr ocess.

D.

The Appl i cant s obj ect t hat t hi s r eadi ng of t he TCA

mi st akenl y conf l at es t he concept s of f i nal i t y and exhaust i on. I n

pr essi ng that cont ent i on, t he Appl i cant s r el y on the Supr eme

Cour t ' s emphasi s i n Wi l l i amson Count y Regi onal Pl anni ng Comm' n v.

Hami l t on Bank of J ohnson Ci t y on the di st i nct i on bet ween those t wo

concept s. See 473 U. S. 172, 192- 193 ( 1985) ( expl ai ni ng t hat " [ t ] he

f i nal i t y requi r ement i s concer ned wi t h whet her t he i ni t i al

deci si on maker has ar r i ved at a def i ni t i ve posi t i on on t he i ssue

t hat i nf l i ct s an act ual concret e i nj ur y" whi l e exhaust i on

"gener al l y r ef er s t o admi ni st r at i ve and j udi ci al pr ocedur es by

whi ch an i nj ur ed part y may seek revi ew of an adver se deci si on and

obt ai n a r emedy i f t he deci si on i s f ound t o be unl awf ul or


20/31

- 20 -

ot her wi se i nappr opr i at e" ) . But t he Appl i cant s ar e mi st aken t o do

so.

Fol l owi ng Wi l l i amson Count y, t he Supr eme Cour t i n Darby

addr essed how exhaust i on bear s on t he f i nal i t y requi r ement under

t he APA, and Dar by di d so by dr awi ng on the di st i nct i on Wi l l i amson

Count y dr ew bet ween exhaust i on and f i nal i t y. Dar by, 509 U. S. at

144. I n doi ng so, Dar by cl ar i f i ed t hat , as a gener al mat t er ,

f ederal j udges may not r equi r e t hose aggr i eved by f ederal agency

act i on t o exhaust addi t i onal l evel s of admi ni st r at i ve r evi ew

bef or e seeki ng r el i ef f r om "f i nal " agency act i on under t he APA.

I d. at 153- 54. But , as we have expl ai ned, Darby t hen went on t o

make cl ear t hat t he APA pr ovi des i n some l i mi t ed ci r cumst ances

t hat an agency act i on i s not f i nal pr eci sel y because an agency

r ul e or a st at ut e r equi r es t hat t he agency act i on must be r evi ewed

admi ni st r at i vel y. See 5 U. S. C. 704; Dar by, 509 U. S. at 154.

And, i n such ci r cumst ances, Dar by f ur t her expl ai ned, t he r equi r ed

admi ni st r at i ve r evi ew both i mposes an exhaust i on r equi r ement and

makes pl ai n t hat t he under l yi ng agency act i on i s not a " f i nal "

one. See Darby, 509 U. S. at 154. 3

3Our anal ysi s of t he TCA' s " f i nal act i on" r equi r ement accor dswi t h t he Sevent h Ci r cui t ' s hol di ng i n Spr i nt Spect r umL. P. v. Ci t yof Car mel , 361 F. 3d 998 ( 7t h Ci r . 2004) , whi ch we ci t ed appr ovi ngl yi n Omni poi nt , 586 F. 3d at 47. Spr i nt Spect r um hel d t hat a l ocaldeni al of an appl i cat i on t o bui l d a t el ecommuni cat i ons f aci l i t ywas not " f i nal " under t he TCA because t he deni al mer el y r equi r edt he appl i cant t o seek a var i ance. Spr i nt Spect r um, 361 F. 3d at1004- 05. Spr i nt Spect r um di d not addr ess whet her a l ocal deni al


21/31

- 21 -

Thus, i n const r ui ng t he TCA' s " f i nal act i on" r equi r ement

t o accor d wi t h t he APA' s si mi l ar r equi r ement , as spel l ed out i n

Darby, we do not cr eat e any t ensi on wi t h Wi l l i amson Count y. Nor

do we conf use exhaust i on wi t h f i nal i t y. We si mpl y r ecogni ze, as

Darby di d, t hat somet i mes t hese t wo concept s over l ap. See Am.

Dai r y of Evansvi l l e, I nc. v. Ber gl and, 627 F. 2d 1252, 1260 ( D. C.

Ci r . 1980) ( " [ W] e not e t hat t he r equi r ement s of f i nal i t y and

exhaust i on ar e i next r i cabl y i nt er t wi ned. ") ; see al so Gr ace

Communi t y Chur ch v. Lenox Twp. , 544 F. 3d 609, 614 ( 6t h Ci r .

2008) ( "Exhaust i on and f i nal i t y . . . somet i mes over l ap. " ) ; Franks

v. Ni mmo, 683 F. 2d 1290, 1295 ( 10t h Ci r . 1982) ( "The doct r i ne[ s] of

' f i nal i t y' and ' exhaust i on' ar e cl osel y i nt er t wi ned. ") . And, as

Darby recogni zed, such over l ap occur s when an agency r equi r es an

i ni t i al admi ni st r at i ve deni al of a per mi t t o be appeal ed

admi ni st r at i vel y bef or e i t may be deemed t o be t he ki nd of " f i nal "

admi ni st r at i ve act i on t hat t he APA per mi t s an aggr i eved par t y t o

chal l enge i n cour t under t hat Act . 4 See Darby, 509 U. S. at 154.

of such an appl i cat i on woul d const i t ut e f i nal act i on under t he TCAi f t hat deni al wer e mor e def i ni t i ve but coul d onl y be r evi ewedj udi ci al l y under st at e l aw af t er t he deni al had been appeal edadmi ni st r at i vel y. See i d.

4We note t hat Spr i nt Spect r uml ooked t o how Wi l l i amson Count yanal yzed r i peness, r at her t han t o how t he f i nal i t y r equi r ementunder t he APA has been i nt er pr et ed, i n const r ui ng t he TCA' s " f i nalact i on" r equi r ement . I d. at 1004. I n Wi l l i amson Count y, t heSupr eme Cour t determi ned t hat a Taki ngs Cl ause cl ai m pr emi sed ont he deni al of appr oval of a pr el i mi nar y pl at was not " r i pe" whent he l ocal pl anni ng commi ssi on di d not deny appr oval out r i ght , buti nst ead r equi r ed t he pet i t i oner t o seek a var i ance. See 473 U. S.


22/31

- 22 -

E.

Agai nst t hi s backgr ound, we now must appl y t he TCA' s

f i nal act i on r equi r ement t o t he f act s bef or e us. I n par t i cul ar ,

we must r esol ve whether t he pr ospect of t he Boar d of Appeal s'

r evi ew of t he Pl anni ng Boar d' s deni al bar s t hat deni al f r om

qual i f yi ng as "f i nal act i on" under t he TCA. I n keepi ng wi t h t he

TCA' s r espect f or t he preser vat i on of l ocal l and use aut hor i t y, we

answer t hat quest i on by l ooki ng to both t he Or di nance and Mai ne

l aw.

The par t i es do not di sput e t hat , as a gener al mat t er ,

Mai ne st at e cour t s may revi ew a l ocal l and use deci si on l i ke t he

one at i ssue her e onl y af t er i t has been r evi ewed by a Boar d of

Appeal s, i f such a Boar d i s i n pl ace. See Wi st er v. Town of Mount

at 186, 193- 94. The Cour t st ated t hat " t he Commi ss i on' s deni al ofappr oval does not concl usi vel y det er mi ne whet her r espondent wi l lbe deni ed al l r easonabl e benef i ci al use of i t s pr oper t y, andt her ef or e i s not a f i nal , r evi ewabl e deci si on. " I d. at 194.Wi l l i amson Count y di d al so st at e i n di ct a that " r espondent woul dnot be requi r ed t o appeal t he Commi ssi on' s r ej ect i on of t hepr el i mi nary pl at t o t he Boar d of Zoni ng Appeal s, because t he Boar dwas empower ed, at most , t o r evi ew t hat r ej ect i on, not t opar t i ci pat e i n t he Commi ssi on' s deci si on maki ng. " I d. at 193. But ,i n maki ng t hat st atement , t he Supr eme Cour t was addr essi ng onl ywhen a const i t ut i onal Taki ngs case i s " r i pe" f or t he pur poses ofAr t i cl e I I I of t he Const i t ut i on, and not a st at ut or y "f i nal " acti onr equi r ement . See i d. Ri peness and f i nal i t y ar e di st i nct concept s,even t hough t hey may over l ap i n some cases. See Uni t y08 v. FEC,596 F. 3d 861, 866 ( D. C. Ci r . 2010) ; 3 Pi er ce, Admi ni st r at i ve LawTr eat i se, 15. 17. Thus, Wi l l i amson County di d not address t hef i nal i t y i ssue t hat i s rel evant her e. For whi l e some agency act i ont hat i s not r i pe i s al so not f i nal , see Spr i nt Spect r um, 361 F. 3dat 1004- 05, an act i on may be r i pe under Wi l l i amson Count y event hough i t i s not f i nal .


23/31

- 23 -

Deser t , 974 A. 2d 903, 909- 11 (Me. 2009) ( di scussi ng Mai ne l aw' s

gener al r equi r ement t hat l and use and zoni ng appeal s ar e f i r st

hear d by a zoni ng boar d of appeal s, r at her t han a st at e cour t ) .

Thus, under Mai ne l aw, Rome necessar i l y made r evi ew by t he Board

of Appeal s a pr er equi si t e t o j udi ci al r evi ew of t he Pl anni ng

Boar d' s deni al when Rome pr ovi ded i n t he Or di nance that

" [ a] dmi ni st r at i ve appeal s . . . submi t t ed under t hi s Or di nance

shal l be subj ect t o t he st andar ds and pr ocedur es est abl i shed by

t he Town of Rome Boar d of Appeal s. " And so we agree wi t h Rome and

t he Pl anni ng Boar d t hat , by opt i ng f or t hi s t wo- st age deci si on

maki ng pr ocess i n t he Or di nance, i ni t i al admi ni st r at i ve deci si ons

concer ni ng appl i cat i ons t o bui l d t el ecommuni cat i ons f aci l i t i es i n

Rome ( such as t he Pl anni ng Boar d' s deni al of t he appl i cat i on her e)

ar e not t he f i nal admi ni st r at i ve det er mi nat i ons t hat st at e l aw

deems t o be subj ect t o j udi ci al r evi ew.

Moreover , al t hough t he Or di nance does not expr essl y

addr ess t he l egal st at us of t he Pl anni ng Boar d' s deni al of an

appl i cat i on dur i ng t he pendency of t he Boar d of Appeal s' r evi ew,

i t i s cl ear t hat t he Pl anni ng Boar d' s deni al di d not i t sel f al t er

t he l egal st at us quo. The Appl i cant s coul d not bui l d t he t ower

bef or e t he Pl anni ng Boar d deni ed t he appl i cat i on, j ust as t hey

coul d not bui l d t he t ower af t er war ds. See Manny I ndus. , 596 F. 2d

at 409( af f i r mi ng Manny I ndus. , 432 F. Supp. 88) ; see al so At t or ney

Gener al ' s Manual on the Admi ni st r at i ve Procedur e Act 105 (1947) ;


24/31

- 24 -

Davi s, Admi ni st r at i ve Law Doct r i nes of Exhaust i on of Remedi es,

Ri peness f or Revi ew, And Pr i mar y J ur i sdi ct i on: 1, 28 Tex. L. Rev.

at 193 ( same) .

Thus, we ar e present ed her e wi t h a t wo- st age

admi ni st r at i ve pr ocess f or t aki ng "f i nal admi ni st r at i ve act i on"

much l i ke t he one t hat t he APA r ecogni zes t hat f eder al agenci es

may somet i mes empl oy t o t ake " f i nal act i on. " See 5 U. S. C. 704;

Dar by, 509 U. S. at 154. And so, j ust as a f eder al agency' s i ni t i al

deni al of a per mi t i s not f i nal under t he APA when an agency rul e

or a st at ut e r equi r es f ur t her admi ni st r at i ve r evi ew, so, t oo, t he

Pl anni ng Boar d' s act i on i s not " f i nal " under t he TCA, gi ven t he

admi ni st r at i ve r evi ew t hat t he Boar d of Appeal s must under t ake i n

consequence of t he Or di nance and Mai ne l aw. 5

5

The TCA pr ovi des f or j udi ci al r evi ew of "any f i nal act i onor f ai l ur e t o act by a St at e or l ocal gover nment or anyi nst r ument al i t y t her eof . " 47 U. S. C. 332( c) ( 7) ( B) ( v) . I nOmni poi nt , we st at ed i n di ct a that t he zoni ng boar d i n t hat casewas an " i nst r ument al i t y" of t he Ci t y of Cr anst on, Rhode I sl and.586 F. 3d at 47. Appl i cant s cont end t hat t he Pl anni ng Boar dconst i t ut es an " i nst r ument al i t y" of t he " l ocal gover nment , " Rome,and t hat , f or t hat r eason, we may not consi der t he f act t hat t hePl anni ng Boar d' s deni al i s subj ect t o appeal t o the Boar d ofAppeal s i n det er mi ni ng whet her t hat deni al const i t ut es " f i nalact i on. " But whether a deci si on has been made by ani nst r ument al i t y, and whet her t he deci si on t hat an i nst r ument al i t yhas made qual i f i es as " f i nal act i on, " ar e t wo separ at e quest i ons.For t he r easons we have expl ai ned, an admi ni st r at i ve deci si on t hatmay not be r evi ewed j udi ci al l y unt i l i t has been r evi ewedadmi ni st r at i vel y i s si mpl y not a "f i nal act i on" under t he TCA,j ust as i t woul d not be under t he APA. Ther ef or e,i nst r ument al i t i es can make t ent at i ve or i nt er l ocut or y deci si ons,whi ch are not " f i nal " wi t hi n t he meani ng of t he TCA. And ani nst r ument al i t y does so when i t deni es an appl i cat i on t o bui l d and


25/31

- 25 -

F.

The Appl i cant s cont end i n t he al t er nat i ve t hat t he

Di st r i ct Cour t r ever si bl y er r ed i n r ul i ng t hat t he Pl anni ng Boar d' s

deni al does not count as " f i nal act i on, " because t he Boar d of

Appeal s had not been "pr oper l y creat ed" and t hus t he Appl i cant s

coul d not be r equi r ed t o t ake an appeal t o t hat Boar d. I n maki ng

t hi s argument , t he Appl i cant s acknowl edge t hat t he Or di nance

expr essl y ref er ences t he Boar d of Appeal s. The Appl i cant s al so

acknowl edge t hat t he Di st r i ct Cour t cor r ect l y r ul ed t hat t he

Or di nance " ' mer ge[ ed] i nt o t he pl eadi ngs' " and t hus " pr oper l y

consi der [ ed] i t under a Rul e 12( b) ( 6) mot i on t o di smi ss. "

Al t er nat i ve Ener gy, I nc. v. St . Paul Fi r e & Mar i ne I ns. Co. , 267

F. 3d 30, 33 ( 1st Ci r . 2001) ; Gl obal Tower Assets, 2014 WL 3784233

at *2 n. 3. The Appl i cant s never t hel ess cont end t hat t hey have met

t hei r bur den of pl eadi ng t hat t hey ar e chal l engi ng a " f i nal act i on"

under t he TCA. Cf . Col o. Far mBur eau Fed' n v. Uni t ed St at es For est

Ser v. , 220 F. 3d 1171, 1173 ( 10t h Ci r . 2000) ( "Pl ai nt i f f s have t he

bur den of i dent i f yi ng speci f i c f eder al conduct and expl ai ni ng how

i t i s ' f i nal agency act i on. ' " ) ( ci t i ng Luj an v. Nat ' l Wi l dl i f e Fed. ,

497 U. S. 871, 882 ( 1990) ) .

t hat deni al must be r evi ewed admi ni st r at i vel y bef or e st at e l awper mi t s st at e cour t r evi ew. Thus, t he char act er i zat i on of t hedeni al i n t hi s case as one made by a " l ocal government " or "ani nst r ument al i t y ther eof " i s no mor e det er mi nat i ve her e t han i t wasi n Omni poi nt , as t he key poi nt i s t hat t he Pl anni ng Boar d, howeverchar acter i zed, di d not t ake "f i nal act i on. "


26/31

- 26 -

I n maki ng t hi s argument , t he Appl i cant s cont end i n par t

t hat t hey were not r equi r ed t o pl ead t hat t he Boar d of Appeal s was

not pr oper l y creat ed, because exhaust i on of r emedi es i s an

af f i r mat i ve def ense t hat pl ai nt i f f s gener al l y need not al l ege i n

t hei r compl ai nt . See J ones v. Bock, 549 U. S. 199, 212, 217 ( 2007) .

But t hi s ar gument s i mpl y conf uses exhaust i on wi t h f i nal i t y. And

t her e i s no doubt t hat t he Appl i cant s do bear t he bur den of

demonst r at i ng t hat t hey ar e chal l engi ng " f i nal act i on. " See Col o.

Far mBur eau Fed' n, 220 F. 3d at 1173 ( 10t h Ci r . 2000) ( ci t i ng Luj an,

497 U. S. at 882) .

Nor i s t her e any doubt t hat t he Appl i cant s' compl ai nt ,

st andi ng on i t s own, does not meet t hat bur den, gi ven t he ref er ence

t o t he Boar d of Appeal s i n t he Or di nance. Af t er al l , t he

Appl i cant s concede that t he Di st r i ct Cour t pr oper l y consi der ed t he

Or di nance i n deci di ng t he 12( b) ( 6) mot i on. And once t he Di st r i ct

Cour t di d consi der t he Or di nance - - and i t s r ef er ence t o the Boar d

of Appeal s - - t he onl y f ai r i nf er ence t hat coul d be dr awn f r om t he

compl ai nt was t hat t he Boar d of Appeal s exi st ed and coul d hear an

appeal f r om t he Pl anni ng Boar d, as nei t her t he compl ai nt , nor any

document at t ached t o t he compl ai nt , support ed any i nf erence t o t he

cont r ar y.

The Appl i cant s r espond t hat t he Di st r i ct Cour t

never t hel ess "wor k[ed] a subst ant i al i nj ust i ce" by t aki ng account

of t he Or di nance but not t hei r cont r ar y evi dence concer ni ng t he


27/31

- 27 -

Boar d of Appeal s bef or e di smi ssi ng t hei r compl ai nt . That evi dence

consi st ed of a par al egal ' s af f i davi t , at t ached t o t he memor andum

of l aw i n opposi t i on t o Rome' s mot i on t o di smi ss. The af f i davi t

st ated t hat an exami nat i on of Rome' s t own warr ant s showed t hat t he

Board had never been f or med.

Ther e ar e obvi ous di f f er ences, however , bet ween t he

Or di nance and t he par al egal ' s af f i davi t . And t hose di f f er ences

bear on whether both shoul d have been consi dered i n assessi ng t he

12( b) ( 6) mot i on, under t he nar r ow except i on t o t he rul e that

di st r i ct cour t s may not or di nar i l y exami ne document s out si de of

t he compl ai nt i n assessi ng mot i ons t o di smi ss. 6 See Al t er nat i ve

Energy, 267 F. 3d at 33 ( quot i ng Wat t erson v. Page, 987 F. 2d 1, 3

( 1st Ci r . 1993) ) ( descr i bi ng t he except i on " f or document s t he

aut hent i ci t y of whi ch ar e not di sput ed by the par t i es; f or of f i ci al

publ i c recor ds; f or document s cent r al t o pl ai nt i f f s' cl ai m; or f or

document s suf f i ci ent l y r ef er r ed t o i n t he compl ai nt . ") . But whi l e

t he Appl i cant s concede that t he Or di nance may be merged i nt o t he

compl ai nt under t hat except i on, t hey make no argument t o us t hat

t he par al egal ' s af f i davi t qual i f i es f or t hat except i on as wel l .

I t i s t hus har d t o see - - wi t hout mor e ar gument t han t he Appl i cant s

6 The Di st r i ct Cour t ' s deci si on anal yzed t he i ssue under Rul e12( b) ( 6) , and t he Appl i cant s make no devel oped argument t hat i twas wr ong t o do so. Theref ore, t he Appl i cant s' argument s aboutwhat t he Di st r i ct Cour t coul d have done had i t addr essed t he i ssueunder Rul e 12( b) ( 1) ar e i r r el evant .


28/31

- 28 -

have put f or war d - - what er r or t he Di st r i ct Cour t commi t t ed i n

r el yi ng on t he Or di nance, but not t he af f i davi t , i n eval uat i ng

whet her t he compl ai nt pl ed f act s suf f i ci ent t o show t hat t he

Appl i cant s wer e chal l engi ng a "f i nal act i on. "

Fur t her mor e, we not e t hat t he Di st r i ct Cour t ' s deci si on

not t o mer ge t he af f i davi t i nt o t he compl ai nt har dl y l ef t t he

Appl i cant s wi t hout opt i ons. The Appl i cant s coul d have si mpl y

sought t o amend t hei r compl ai nt t o add t he necessar y al l egat i ons

af t er t he Appl i cant s' compl ai nt had been di smi ssed wi t hout

pr ej udi ce. I nst ead, however , t he Appl i cant s chose t o move f or

r econsi der at i on under Rul e 59( e) , at whi ch poi nt t hey agai n

at t empt ed t o pr esent t hei r evi dence t hat t he Boar d of Appeal s had

not been pr oper l y f ormed. But havi ng done so, t hey t hen chose not

t o appeal t he deni al of t hat mot i on on t hi s gr ound.

IV.

We now t ur n t o t he Appl i cant s' f eder al const i t ut i onal

due pr ocess cl ai ms. The Appl i cant s make no ef f or t on appeal t o

di st i ngui sh bet ween t hei r pr ocedur al and subst ant i ve due pr ocess

cl ai ms, and t he Di st r i ct Cour t di smi ssed t hei r f eder al due pr ocess

"cl ai ms" wi t hout di st i ngui shi ng bet ween t hem. Gl obal Tower

Assets, 2014 WL 3784233 at *11. But we br i ef l y consi der each

separ at el y.

As t o t he Appl i cant s' pr ocedur al due pr ocess cl ai m, t hey

do not addr ess on appeal t he f act t hat st at e l aw pr ovi ded t hem a


29/31

- 29 -

pr ocess f or seeki ng r el i ef f r om t he act i on of t he Pl anni ng Boar d

t hr ough appeal t o t he Boar d of Appeal s, and i n st at e cour t

t her eaf t er . See Wi st er , 974 A. 2d at 907- 12 ( di scussi ng Mai ne st at e

cour t r evi ew of l ocal l and use deci si ons) . Thus, t o t he ext ent

t hat t he Appl i cant s' chal l enge t o t he Di st r i ct Cour t ' s di smi ssal

of t hei r pr ocedur al due pr ocess cl ai m i s not wai ved f or l ack of

devel oped argument on appeal , see Uni t ed St ates v. Zanni no, 895

F. 2d 1, 17 ( 1st Ci r . 1990) , t he chal l enge f ai l s on t he mer i t s, as

we have no basi s f or concl udi ng t hat t he appl i cant s l acked an

adequat e st at e l aw r emedy f or any of t he pr ocedur al def ect s t hat

t hey al l ege. See Li car i v. Fer r uzzi , 22 F. 3d 344, 348 ( 1st Ci r .

1990) .

The Appl i cant s' subst ant i ve due process cl ai m i s

pr emi sed on t he pur port ed conf l i ct of i nt erest t hat some members

of t he Pl anni ng Boar d had bet ween thei r dut i es on the Pl anni ng

Boar d and t hei r membershi p i n t he BRCA, whi ch publ i cl y opposed t he

t ower . Appl i cant s' compl ai nt al l eges t hat t hose Pl anni ng Boar d

members, t hr ough t hei r membershi p i n t he BRCA, had a f i nanci al

i nt er est i n conservat i on easement s t he BRCA hel d. Appl i cant s'

compl ai nt al so al l eges t hat one member ' s brother was appr oached by

a compet i t or t o si t e a cel l t ower on hi s pr oper t y, abut t i ng t he

pr oper t y wher e Appl i cant s sought t o si t e t hei r s. The appar ent

i mpl i cat i on - - nowher e act ual l y st at ed i n t he compl ai nt - - i s t hat


30/31

- 30 -

t he member s conspi r ed t o bl ock Appl i cant s' t ower i n order t o

f aci l i t at e t he br ot her l easi ng hi s l and t o t he compet i t or .

As we have l ong not ed, t he "r un of t he mi l l " l and use

di sput e does not gi ve r i se to a vi abl e subst ant i ve due pr ocess

chal l enge. See Cr eat i ve Envi r onment s, I nc. v. East abr ook, 680

F. 2d 822, 833 ( 1st Ci r . 1982) . And f or good r eason: "Ever y appeal

by a di sappoi nt ed devel oper f r om an adver se rul i ng by a l ocal . .

. pl anni ng boar d necessari l y i nvol ves some cl ai m t hat t he boar d

exceeded, abused or ' di st or t ed' i t s l egal aut hor i t y i n some manner ,

of t en f or some al l egedl y per ver se ( f r om t he devel oper ' s poi nt of

vi ew) r eason. " I d. Gi ven t hat t he door t o subst ant i ve due pr ocess

cl ai ms i n t he l and use cont ext i s onl y "sl i ght l y aj ar " f or "t r ul y

hor r endous si t uat i ons, " Li car i , 22 F. 3d at 350 ( quot i ng Nest or

Col on Medi na & Successor s, I nc. v. Cust odi o, 964 F. 2d 32, 45 ( 1st

Ci r . 1992) ) , "we see not hi ng i n t he pr esent case t o di st i ngui sh i t

suf f i ci ent l y f r omt he usual l and devel oper ' s cl ai munder st at e l aw

t o war r ant r ecogni t i on of a f eder al const i t ut i onal quest i on. "

Cr eat i ve Envi r onment s, 680 F. 2d at 833.

The Appl i cant s do cont end t hat t hey "wer e subj ect ed t o

a 10- mont h sham pr ocess . " But , as t hey acknowl edge, t hey agr eed

t o extend t he pr ocess on f our separ at e occasi ons. And, i n any

case, such cl ai ms f ace a hi gh bar . See Chi pl i n Ent er pr i ses, I nc.

v. Ci t y of Lebanon, 712 F. 2d 1524, 1528 ( 1st Ci r . 1983) ( compl ai nt

di d not st at e a due pr ocess cl ai mwhen i t al l eged "bad- f ai t h" f i ve


31/31

year del ay i n gr ant i ng bui l di ng per mi t ) ; see al so Rumf or d Phar macy,

I nc. v. Ci t y of East Pr ovi dence, 970 F. 2d 996, 1000 n. 8 ( 1st Ci r .

1992) . Mor eover , t he Appl i cant s' vague al l egat i ons of conf l i ct s

of i nt er est and f i nanci al l y mot i vat ed conspi r acy do not - - at l east

wi t hout f ar mor e - - show t hat t he Pl anni ng Boar d act ed i n t he ki nd

of consci ence- shocki ng f ashi on t hat we r equi r e f or subst ant i ve due

pr ocess chal l enges t o make i t past t he gat e. See Cr eat i ve

Envi r onment s, 680 F. 2d at 833; Li car i , 22 F. 3d at 350.

V.

For t he f or egoi ng r easons, we affirm the Di str i ct

Cour t ' s order and j udgment of di smi ssal .

Global Tower Assets LLC v. Town of Rome, 1st Cir. (2016)

Documents