Spectra Commc'n Grp. v. City of Cameron, MO, No. 14-2808 (8th Cir. 2015)
Annotate this CaseSpectra filed suit against the City, alleging that the City violated federal and Missouri law by requiring Spectra to comply with a local ordinance governing public rights of way. Determining that Spectra's 42 U.S.C. 1983 claim is properly before the court, the court concluded that section 253 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, 47 U.S.C. 253, does not authorize a private right of action for damages under section 1983. Therefore, the district court did not err in dismissing Spectra's section 1983 claim. The court also concluded that the district court properly abstained under Colorado River, which permits federal courts to decline to exercise jurisdiction over cases where "parallel" state court litigation is pending, meaning that there is "a substantial likelihood that the state proceeding will fully dispose of the claims presented in the federal court." Finally, the court concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the City's first request for attorney fees and the City's renewed fee request. Spectra did not continue actively to pursue its section 1983 claim after the district court dismissed it, but simply reasserted it for the purpose of preserving its rights on appeal. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment.
Court Description: Murphy, Author, with Melloy and Smith, Circuit Judges] Civil Case - civil rights. In challenge to the requirement that it comply with Right-of-Way and Communications Ordinance, Spectra claimed a violation of Section 253 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996. Section 253 does not create a private right of action, as neither the text of section 253, Congressional intent, nor the legislative history supports a private right of action. Thus, the district court did not err in dismissing the claim for damages under section 1983. After consideration of both the obligation to exercise jurisdiction and the combination of factors counseling against that exercise, the district court did not abuse its discretion in abstaining under Colorado River. The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the City's claim for attorneys fees because the question of whether section 253 created a private right of action was unresolved and Spectra did not continue to pursue the damages claim after the district court dismissed it.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.