Frank Shortino v. Charles B. Wheeler

531 F.2d 938
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
DecidedMarch 23, 1976
Docket75--1596
StatusPublished
Cited by12 cases

This text of 531 F.2d 938 (Frank Shortino v. Charles B. Wheeler) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Frank Shortino v. Charles B. Wheeler, 531 F.2d 938 (8th Cir. 1976).

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

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.

*939 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.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Pfenninger v. Exempla, Inc.
116 F. Supp. 2d 1184 (D. Colorado, 2000)
Crawford by and Through Crawford v. City of Kansas
952 F. Supp. 1467 (D. Kansas, 1997)
Estate of Devon Alexander Morgan v. Mayor of Hampton
936 F. Supp. 343 (E.D. Virginia, 1996)
Was v. Young
796 F. Supp. 1041 (E.D. Michigan, 1992)
Westbrook v. City of Jackson, Mississippi
772 F. Supp. 932 (S.D. Mississippi, 1991)
Love v. Black
597 F. Supp. 1092 (E.D. Missouri, 1984)
Gale v. Moore
587 F. Supp. 1491 (W.D. Missouri, 1984)
Higdon v. Metropolitan Dade County
446 So. 2d 203 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1984)
Prudential Property & Casualty Co. v. Insurance Commission
534 F. Supp. 571 (D. South Carolina, 1982)
Dae v. City of St. Louis
596 S.W.2d 454 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1980)
Wooters v. Jornlin
477 F. Supp. 1140 (D. Delaware, 1979)
Reedy v. Mullins
456 F. Supp. 955 (W.D. Virginia, 1978)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
531 F.2d 938, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/frank-shortino-v-charles-b-wheeler-ca8-1976.