Soscia Holdings, LLC v. State of Rhode Island

• Court: Court of Appeals for the First Circuit
• Decided: February 13, 2026
• Docket: 24-1397
• Status: Published

Opinion

United States Court of Appeals For the First Circuit

No. 24-1397

SOSCIA HOLDINGS, LLC,

Plaintiff, Appellant,

v.

STATE OF RHODE ISLAND; RHODE ISLAND DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT ("DEM"); TERRENCE GRAY, DIRECTOR OF DEM, AND DAVID E. CHOPY, DEM ADMINISTRATOR, individually and in their official capacities,

Defendants, Appellees.

APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF RHODE ISLAND

[Hon. Landya B. McCafferty,* U.S. District Judge]

Before

Gelpí, Lynch, and Howard, Circuit Judges.

Richard E. Fleury, with whom Patrick J. Dougherty and Dougherty & Associates Law, Inc. were on brief, for appellant.

Nicholas M. Vaz, Special Assistant Rhode Island Attorney General, with whom Peter F. Neronha, Rhode Island Attorney General, was on brief, for appellees.

* Of the District of New Hampshire, sitting by designation. February 13, 2026 PER CURIAM. Soscia Holdings, LLC brought, under 42

U.S.C. § 1983, federal constitutional claims and pendent state

constitutional and other claims against the State of Rhode Island,

its Department of Environmental Management ("DEM"), and two state

DEM officials in both their individual and official capacities.

The actions arose from DEM's acting in July 2022 under Rhode Island

General Laws § 46-19.1-1, the "Permits required for certain dams"

statute ("Permitting Act"), directing Soscia, as operator of the

Flat River Reservoir Dam ("Dam"), to reduce the Dam's water flow,

inter alia, in order to keep the water level at certain heights in

the upstream Johnson's Pond. On June 15, 2023, the U.S. District

Court for the District of Rhode Island dismissed all claims against

the State of Rhode Island and DEM on Eleventh Amendment immunity

grounds, dismissed the § 1983 individual capacity claims against

the two DEM officials on qualified immunity grounds, and dismissed

the claim under the Rhode Island Constitution. Soscia Holdings,

LLC v. Rhode Island, 677 F. Supp. 3d 55, 60, 66-71 (D.R.I. 2023).

It denied the motion to dismiss the § 1983 official capacity claims

against the two DEM officials for prospective injunctive relief.

Id. at 60.

After that order dismissed most of its claims, Soscia

amended its complaint several times, asserting DEM had assessed a

civil penalty of $23,000 against it for violations of the

- 3 - Permitting Act and the Rules and Regulations adopted pursuant to

that Act.1

After further proceedings and addressing Soscia's Fourth

Amended Complaint, on March 25, 2024, the district court dismissed

the remaining federal claims which alleged violations of the

Contract Clause, the Takings Clause, the Due Process Clause, and

the Equal Protection Clause of the U.S. Constitution. Soscia

Holdings, LLC v. Gray, 725 F. Supp. 3d 156, 170-183 (D.R.I. 2024).

The court separately declined to exercise supplemental

jurisdiction over the state law claims for "intentional

interference with contractual relations" and "intentional

interference with franchise/contractual right." Id. at 168, 183.

After the district court's second dismissal order, it is

undisputed that the Town of Coventry perfected a condemnation of

property previously owned by Soscia, including the Dam and

Johnson's Pond, for just compensation of $157,000. The defendants

then moved to dismiss this appeal for lack of appellate

jurisdiction "over all or substantially all of Soscia Holdings,

LLC's claims" or in the alternative, for "summary disposition

1Exhibit 14 to Soscia's Fourth Amended Complaint is a July 12, 2023, DEM Notice of Violation assessing a penalty of $23,000 and Soscia filed a June 6, 2024, DEM Notice of Violation assessing a penalty of $217,000 for continuing violations. Both parties represent that Soscia has contested these penalties under state law, as it is entitled to do, and that those proceedings were not entirely final as of the time of oral argument on this appeal.

- 4 - affirming the decisions below." That motion was deferred to the

oral argument panel, which heard argument on February 2, 2026.

At oral argument on this appeal, Soscia represented that

it seeks prospective injunctive relief against defendants' ongoing

enforcement actions and disputed that after Coventry's

condemnation order it has no remaining property interest at all.

Soscia also represented that it is pursuing its claim for

declaratory relief that DEM has no jurisdiction to issue any orders

enforcing the Permitting Act over Soscia's alleged rights

(including presumably any final monetary penalties). Thus, Soscia

has argued that both its prospective injunctive relief claims and

declaratory judgment claims are not moot and that it continues to

assert its claims of unconstitutionality as to any future

administrative actions.

The district court's two well-reasoned opinions cogently

explain why each of Soscia's federal claims fails to state a

plausible claim for relief. We see no reason to repeat those well-

done and fulsome analyses, and Soscia's new arguments on appeal

are either waived or fail on plain error review. See Rockwood v.

SKF USA Inc., 687 F.3d 1, 9 (1st Cir. 2012) ("Our case law is clear

that 'arguments not raised in the district court cannot be raised

for the first time on appeal.'" (quoting Sierra Club v. Wagner,

555 F.3d 21, 26 (1st Cir. 2009))); United States v. Duarte, 246

F.3d 56, 60 (1st Cir. 2001) ("Because [plaintiff] did not advance

- 5 - this argument below, we review it for plain error."). We grant the

defendants' alternative motion for affirmance based on the

reasoning of the district court's opinions.

The judgment of the district court is affirmed.

- 6 -