Agenda - Planning Commission - 08/07/2014

Home

May 10, 2014 I Volume 8 I Issue 9 Zoning Bulletin alleging that the manner in which the City Council denied its application violated both its procedural and substantive due process rights guaranteed under the 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution. Flagship claimed that the hearing on the requested Ordinance was chaotic, emotional, and involved the City Council ignoring evidence or basing de- cisions on ex parte communications or unexplained reasoning. Flagship also alleged that the City Council had posthearing discussions on the Ordinance at a City Council meeting without providing Flagship with no- tice that the Ordinance would be discussed. Flagship also contended that the City Council's findings were "not supported by substantial, competent evidence" but that, in fact, some of the cited reasons were actually undermined by the evidence presented at the hearing. The district court dismissed Flagship's claims. It held that Flagship's procedural due process claim failed because Flagship had failed to pursue available and adequate state remedies. It held that Flagship's substantive due process claim failed because the City's actions were executive in nature and thus could not support a substantive due process claim. Flagship appealed. DECISION: Judgment of district court affirmed. The United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit, held that Flagship's procedural due process and substantive due process claims failed. The court explained that a procedural due process claim can exist only if no adequate state remedies are available. Importantly, the court noted that the unavailability of adequate state remedies "is an element of a procedural due process claim —as opposed to an exhaustion requirement." Here, the court found that Flagship's complaint failed to allege that ad- equate state remedies were unavailable to cure the procedural depriva- tions allegedly committed by the City. The court also found that Flagship had failed to allege that it had attempted to avail itself of the remedies provided by the Florida Administrative Procedure Act. Accordingly, the court concluded that Flagship's procedural due process claims were barred as a matter of law. As to Flagship's substantive due process claim, the court explained that "areas in which substantive rights are created only by state law . . . are not subject to substantive due process protection under the Due Process Clause" because "substantive due process rights are created only by the Constitution." An exception to that general rule exists, said the court, when "an individual's state -created rights are infringed by legislative act." In that scenario, "the substantive component of the Due Process Clause generally protects [the individual] from arbitrary and irrational ac- tion by the governnent." In other words, when an arbitrary and irrational legislative act infringes on a state -created right —such as the state -created land use rights at issue here —a property owner may bring a substantive due process claim, alleging its constitutional rights were infringed. By 6 © 2014 Thomson Reuters