From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Shortino v. Wheeler

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit
Mar 23, 1976
531 F.2d 938 (8th Cir. 1976)

Summary

affirming that plaintiff had no constitutionally protected interest in having home and business protected from fire even where municipality undertook to provide fire protection

Summary of this case from Fortner v. Cnty. of El Paso

Opinion

No. 75-1596.

Submitted March 12, 1976.

Decided March 23, 1976.

Charles C. Shafer, Jr., Kansas City, Mo., filed appendix and appellants' brief. Lawrence F. Gepford, Kansas City, Mo., filed appearance, but did not make argument or file brief.

Aaron A. Wilson, City Atty., S. B. Mumma and Dan G. Jackson, III, Asst. City Attys., Harry L. Browne and Howard F. Sachs, Kansas City, Mo., for appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri.

Before HEANEY, BRIGHT and ROSS, Circuit Judges.


Appellants, Local No. 42, International Association of Fire Fighters and two of its officers, appeal from the dismissal of their class action suit against the Mayor and the members of the City Council of Kansas City, Missouri. The appellants seeks injunctive and declaratory relief to remedy alleged insufficient fire protection in Kansas City and to require an immediate increase in the number of firefighters.

The appellants brought the action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, asserting that the defendants' failure to provide adequate fire protection deprived the appellants of their equal protection and due process rights to have their homes and businesses protected from fire. The District Court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. We affirm.

In their complaint, the appellants have failed to allege discrimination against any group or geographical area in providing fire protection for the city. Instead, they allege inadequacies in fire protection throughout the city. Absent any allegation of improper classification or discrimination among citizens, there is no judicially cognizable equal protection cause of action.

The appellants also assert that the due process clause provides that once a municipality undertakes to provide fire protection, "it is under a constitutional obligation to provide adequate service." We find no support for this broad proposition. See generally Palmer v. Thompson, 403 U.S. 217, 91 S.Ct. 1940, 29 L.Ed.2d 438 (1971); Dandridge v. Williams, 397 U.S. 471, 90 S.Ct. 1153, 25 L.Ed.2d 491 (1970).

We affirm.


Summaries of

Shortino v. Wheeler

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit
Mar 23, 1976
531 F.2d 938 (8th Cir. 1976)

affirming that plaintiff had no constitutionally protected interest in having home and business protected from fire even where municipality undertook to provide fire protection

Summary of this case from Fortner v. Cnty. of El Paso

rejecting argument that "once a municipality undertakes to provide fire protection, `it is under a constitutional obligation to provide adequate service'"

Summary of this case from Was v. Young

rejecting argument that municipality which has undertaken to provide fire protection is under constitutional duty to provide adequate service

Summary of this case from Westbrook v. City of Jackson, Miss.
Case details for

Shortino v. Wheeler

Case Details

Full title:FRANK SHORTINO ET AL., APPELLANTS, v. CHARLES B. WHEELER ET AL., APPELLEES

Court:United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit

Date published: Mar 23, 1976

Citations

531 F.2d 938 (8th Cir. 1976)

Citing Cases

Westbrook v. City of Jackson, Miss.

Government officials did not directly kill the Jackson children, and the Constitution does not guarantee to…

Estate of Morgan v. Mayor City Council

The fact that a municipality chooses to provide fire protection does not lend itself to the conclusion that…