Dist. Ct. did not err in granting defendant-Village’s motion for summary judgment in plaintiff-slaughterhouse’s section 1983 action alleging that defendant’s actions in increasing enforcement of Village’s regulations regarding plaintiff’s operation of slaughterhouse, as well as its direction to defendant to propose relocation its slaughterhouse and its threat to bring future nuisance abatement lawsuit against plaintiff violated plaintiff’s procedural due process and equal protection rights, where plaintiff’s threat of future lawsuit resulted in plaintiff losing critical financing and having to close its operations. Defendant’s action in giving notice of future lawsuit did not constitute deprivation of due process, since: (1) defendant’s actions did not actually forbid plaintiff from performing slaughterhouse operations; and (2) plaintiff would still have opportunity to be heard on its dispute with defendant at future nuisance abatement lawsuit. Moreover, plaintiff had received notice and opportunity to be heard at several public hearings conducted by defendant to discuss plaintiff’s slaughterhouse operations, as well as complaints about plaintiff‘s operations from its neighbors. Also, with respect to plaintiff’s equal protection claim, plaintiff failed to present evidence of suitable comparative business who received more favorable treatment.
Federal 7th Circuit Court
Civil Court
Due Process