Agenda - Planning Commission - 05/01/2008

Home

April 10, 20081 Volume 21 No.7 water lines. On January 3, 2003, after a public hearing, the board voted to deny the plan. On October 7, 2003, the city took, pursuant to its eminent domain powers, thirty-eight acres of Perez's property for the purpose of water supply protection. The Clarks and Perez ar- gued that the taking left their proposed subdivision plan unfeasible because access to the subdivision was planned through that land. The Clarks and Perez brought an action against the city, alleging the city violated the due process and equal protection guarantees of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. Spe- cmcally, they alleged that the city conspired to interfere with the resi- dential development of their lands. The city asked the district court to dismiss the action, arguing the action failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. The district court referred the matter to a magistrate judge who recom- mended dismissal. The district court dismissed the action. The Clarks and Perez appealed. DECISION: Affirmed. The court concluded that the facts presented by the Clarks and Perez failed to show violations of their constitutional due process and equal protection rights under the Fourteenth Amendment. The court found their action was properly dismissed. The court said that claimants were only entitled to relief under. federal law, 42 U.s.e. ~ 1983, for a violation of substantive due process rights if they could prove that: (1) they suffered a depriva- tion of an established life, liberty, or property interest; and (2) such deprivation occurred through governmental action that "shocks the conscience. " The court disagreed with the Clark-Perez contention that the city's actions amounted to a pattern of arbitrary, unreasonable and capricious acts that deprived themof their right to reasonable use of their property. The court said that whether the Clarks and Perez had a property interest in developing their land did not matter because they failed to prove that the city engaged in behavior that shocked the conscience. The court said that a discretionary permitting or li- censing determination by state or local decision-makers could not or- dinarily be challenged as violating substantive due process-whether the decisions were right or wrong. The court stressed that the Clarks and Perez neither alleged any fundamental procedural irregularity nor alleged that a fundamental principle had been violated. They had only complained they were denied necessary permits to devel- op a residential subdivision and that the city denied those permits in furtherance of its own interests. Consequently, the court held that a "run-of-the-mill land-use case such as this one" did not rise to the level of behavior that shocks the conscience. 9 27