EJS Properties, LLC v. City of Toledo
2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 18624
| 6th Cir. | 2012

Background

  • EJS Properties sought to build a charter school on a Pilkington site in east Toledo; rezoning from M-2 to M-3 was required to proceed.
  • City Council’s Zoning and Planning Committee recommended rezoning to M-3 and sent it to full Council; August 13, 2002 vote to table temporarily.
  • Alleged quid pro quo: McCloskey allegedly asked Pilkington executives for a $100,000 donation to a retirees’ fund; executives declined.
  • August 27, 2002 City Council denied Ordinance 643-02, re-zoning the Pilkington parcel; several council members changed votes.
  • TPS later condemned the Pilkington site; by 2004 TPS obtained re-zoning and built a middle school on the property.
  • EJS sued the City and McCloskey under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and added a First Amendment petition claim; district court granted summary judgment on all constitutional claims.

Issues

Issue Plaintiff's Argument Defendant's Argument Held
Whether EJS had a protected property interest in rezoning or related contracts. EJS asserts a property interest in the rezoning ordinance and in contracts. Rezoning is discretionary; no automatic entitlement. No cognizable property interest; discretionary decision precludes entitlement.
Whether EJS had a liberty interest protected by due process in corrupt decisions. EJS asserts liberty interests in corruption-free government action and in contracts. No stand-alone liberty interest in corruption-free decision making. No independent liberty interest; due process fails without a protected interest.
Whether the zoning decision could be challenged as a substantive due-process violation for ‘shocking the conscience.’ Corrupt process may violate substantive due process. Absent a protected interest, no substantive due-process claim. Failure to show a protectable interest defeats substantive due-process claim.
Whether EJS’s First Amendment right to petition was violated. Right to petition was hindered or meaningfully accessed. Petitioning rights do not require government to listen or respond; access need not be meaningful post-entry. Right to petition was not violated; no protected meaningful-access injury shown.
Whether EJS’s equal-protection claim (class-of-one) survives rational-basis review. Different treatment of EJS and TPS without rational basis. TPS and EJS were not similarly situated; there was a rational basis for difference. TPS and EJS not similarly situated; rational-basis review supportsDistrict Court ruling.

Key Cases Cited

  • Logan v. Zimmerman Brush Co., 455 U.S. 422 (U.S. 1982) (property interest and procedural due-process considerations)
  • Nasierowski Bros. Inv. Co. v. City of Sterling Heights, 949 F.2d 890 (6th Cir. 1991) (property interest in state-created regulation)
  • Buckeye Cmty. Hope Found. v. City of Cuyahoga Falls, 263 F.3d 627 (6th Cir. 2001) (property interest in zoning ordinance after approval)
  • Silver v. Franklin Twp., Bd. of Zoning Appeals, 966 F.2d 1031 (6th Cir. 1992) (due-process requirements for discretionary decisions)
  • Braun v. Ann Arbor Charter Twp., 519 F.3d 564 (6th Cir. 2008) (due-process requires a protected interest for substantive challenge)
  • Med. Corp., Inc. v. City of Lima, 296 F.3d 404 (6th Cir. 2002) (discretionary benefit not cognizable as property)
  • Triomphe Investors v. City of Northwood, 49 F.3d 198 (6th Cir. 1995) (contingent rights and discretion in zoning decisions)
  • G.M. Engineers and Associates, Inc. v. West Bloomfield Township, 922 F.2d 328 (6th Cir. 1990) (contract rights may be property for takings; discretion governs due process)
  • Chandler v. Village of Chagrin Falls, 296 F. App’x 463 (6th Cir. 2008) (unpublished; early-start permits and property interests)
  • John L. v. Adams, 969 F.2d 228 (6th Cir. 1992) (meaningful access to courts; petition rights context)
  • Engquist v. Oregon Dept. of Agric., 553 U.S. 591 (U.S. 2008) (limits on class-of-one claims; discretion in public decisions)
  • Olech v. Willowbrook, 528 U.S. 562 (U.S. 2000) (class-of-one equal protection)
  • Hudson v. Palmer, 468 U.S. 517 (U.S. 1984) (petitions and access to courts context)
  • Snyder v. Nolen, 380 F.3d 279 (7th Cir. 2004) (meaningful access doctrine in context)
Read the full case