Willienard Banks and Aaron Jackson own adjacent lots in the Chestnut Run subdivision in Bloomfield Township, Michigan. In 2021, their properties began to flood intermittently due to broken pipes in a drain easement running beneath their land. The plaintiffs blamed the local government, alleging that a 2019 road improvement project caused more water to enter the drain and that the township failed to maintain the pipes. They sued the township, the Oakland County Road Commission, and various officials under Section 1983, raising federal and state takings claims, as well as procedural and substantive due process, equal protection, and civil conspiracy claims. The district court dismissed the complaint for failure to state a claim, and the Sixth Circuit reviewed the dismissal de novo.
Chief Judge Sutton, writing for the panel, analyzed the claims under the Federal Takings Clause, the Michigan Takings Clause, and various civil rights theories. First, regarding physical takings, the court explained that a taking requires a government physical invasion that interferes with private property. The plaintiffs argued the 2019 road project caused the flooding, but the court held that a taking requires the appropriation to be the intended or foreseeable result of the government's action. Citing Bruneau v. Michigan Department of Environment, the court noted that negligent infliction of injury on property does not constitute a taking. The plaintiffs' own expert evidence suggested the drain system was defective and needed repair, and they did not allege that the government realized or could have foreseen that road improvements would lead to the flooding. Second, regarding the failure to maintain pipes, the court found that the pipes were not government property. Under Michigan law, ownership is determined by the text of the easement. The subdivision's declaration of covenants reserved the easement to the developer, Chestnut Run LP, and the plat identified the easement as private, not dedicated to the public. Because the township lacked a possessory interest, it had no obligation to fix the property. The court rejected arguments that the drain was dedicated to public use through common law or prescriptive easement, noting the plaintiffs failed to allege the owner's intent to dedicate or continuous trespass. Third, regarding regulatory takings, the plaintiffs alleged no land-use restriction burdened their properties. Fourth, the court addressed the Michigan Takings Clause, noting that while it offers broader protection, the plaintiffs failed to argue it should be applied differently than the federal clause. Finally, the court rejected the due process, equal protection, and civil conspiracy claims. For due process, there was no state action because the township had no interest in the private easement. For substantive due process, the conduct was not egregious enough to shock the conscience. For equal protection, there was no comparator showing differential treatment. For civil conspiracy, the plaintiffs failed to allege a coordinated plan or unlawful action.
The plaintiffs' lawsuit is dismissed without prejudice, meaning they may refile if they can allege specific factual grounds supporting their constitutional claims. The decision clarifies that negligence alone does not trigger takings liability and reinforces that government entities are not liable for maintaining private easements unless they have a possessory interest or have formally dedicated the property to public use.