Dist. Ct. did not err in dismissing plaintiff’s section 1983 action, alleging that defendant-city manager violated plaintiff’s First and 14th Amendment rights by retaliating against it by recommending that city not go forward with Preliminary Development Incentive Agreement (PDA) that would provide plaintiff with $2.5 million in Tax Increment Financing for redevelopment of hotel property. PDA provided that all contingencies outlined in agreement had to be satisfied prior to city providing financial incentive, and defendant based his recommendation on plaintiff’s failure to complete project with any source of income other than $2.5 million at issue in PDA. Plaintiff based retaliation claim on contention that defendant blocked PDA because attorney member of plaintiff exposed unflattering information about defendant and named him in discovery in connection with unrelated 2017 lawsuit. While plaintiff asserted that member’s representation of client in 2017 lawsuit fell within First Amendment right to petition govt. for redress of grievances, plaintiff failed to state viable retaliation claim, since: (1) client in 2017 lawsuit, as opposed to plaintiff, had engaged in protected activity; and (2) plaintiff could not rely on another plaintiff to support plaintiff’s own retaliation claim. Also, plaintiff could not establish viable due process claim because PDA and contract for purchase of hotel that was contingent on PDA provided only right to acquire property and not right in property itself. Too, plaintiff failed to establish viable class-of-one equal protection claim, where defendant stated rational basis for recommending that plaintiff not receive financing under PDA.
Federal 7th Circuit Court
Civil Court
First Amendment