ST. LOUIS – A recent case in U.S. District Court for the Eastern Division of Missouri - Eastern Division involving the city of Maplewood's nuisance ordinance may be of interest to advocates for domestic abuse victims, as well as public administrators, for its unusual bearing on a situation in which a battered woman had her occupancy permit revoked.
The woman had filed suit after having her occupancy permit revoked because of the municipal law against a “nuisance” that stemmed from the unwelcome visits of an abusive partner.
U.S. District Judge Jean C. Hamilton agand reed to dismiss Maplewood officials named in the suit provided a memorandum and order on May 11.
Court documents outline the background in the case in which the plaintiff, Rosetta Watson, was notified by a city official of a hearing related to the city’s nuisance policy on March 22, 2012, after various documented incidents where Watson's boyfriend, Robert Hennings, disobeyed her request to leave her property and subsequently physically abused her while making noise.
In addition, court documents show Watson herself was issued a summons for domestic assault after injuring Hennings in an act of self-defense.
According to court documents, Watson’s complaint argues that the enforcement of Maplewood's nuisance policy infringed on her fundamental constitutional rights, specifically, her right to travel.
In the ruling, the judge considered a “strong presumption of validity” accorded to the nuisance policy and whether individual liability and municipal liability can both be separately established – an issue where the court went into case law to provide guidance.
The court found that under Monell v. Department of Social Services, “local governing bodies can be sued directly – for monetary, declaratory or injunctive relief where, as here, the action that is alleged to be unconstitutional implements or executes a policy statement, ordinance, regulation or decision officially adopted and promulgated by that body's officers.”
The ruling dismissed the individual city officials named in the complaint as defendants, but upheld part of the plaintiff's amended complaint.