Frank Perano v. Township of Tilden, 423 F. App'x 234

Perano appeals from a district court order dismissing his §1983/§1985 and related claims against the Township of Tilden and several officials/agents.
Consent Order from a 1999 state-court dispute required the Township to use best efforts to provide water/sewage capacity to Pleasant Hills, contingent on Perano obtaining final land development approval for Phases VI and VII.
Township approvals for Phases VII (2001) and VI (2006) conditioned Perano to construct/sewage systems per PADEP rules; Perano has not completed Phase VI's water/sewage systems.
Perano alleges Township obstructionist conduct: inspections without notice, stop-work orders, licensing disputes, license-denial/fee issues, and attempts to obtain a sewer easement via takings actions.
District Court dismissed the amended complaint with prejudice after allowing amendments to add PADEP and claims; Perano appeals challenging the procedural and substantive claims and the denial of leave to amend.
The court reviews de novo a Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal and defers to the factual allegations as true.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Procedural due process viability	Perano asserts deprivation of a protected property interest with inadequate post-deprivation remedies.	Defendants contend state remedies (MPC, Eminent Domain Code, and other procedures) were available and adequate.	Procedural due process claim failed; post-deprivation remedies are adequate.
Substantive due process viability	Perano contends conduct shocks the conscience in land-use disputes.	Actions are routine zoning/administrative conduct not shocking to conscience.	Substantive due process claim rejected; conduct did not shock the conscience.
Equal protection (class of one) viability	Perano alleges differential treatment from similarly situated developers.	Plaintiff failed to plausibly identify similarly situated comparators.	No plausible class-of-one equal protection claim.
Contract Clause claim viability	Township actions to enforce ordinances violated the Consent Order, impairing contract.	No legislative change occurred; actions were not a Contract Clause violation.	Contract Clause claim not stated; no legislative impairment.
Conspiracy claim viability under §1983	Defendants conspired to deprive federally protected rights.	There was no actual deprivation of a federally protected right.	No §1983 conspiracy claim; deprivation not established.

Hill v. Borough of Kutztown, 455 F.3d 225 (3d Cir. 2006) (procedural due process viability depends on adequate state remedies)
DeBlasio v. Zoning Bd. of Adjustment for Twp. of West Amwell, 53 F.3d 592 (3d Cir. 1995) (post-deprivation remedies can be constitutionally adequate)
Revell v. Port Auth. of N.Y. & N.J., 598 F.3d 128 (3d Cir. 2010) (post-deprivation process and remedies context)
Bello v. Walker, 840 F.2d 1124 (3d Cir. 1988) (state judicial mechanism to challenge administrative decisions adequate)
United Artists Theatre Circuit, Inc. v. Twp. of Warrington, 316 F.3d 402 (3d Cir. 2003) (shocks-the-conscience standard in land-use context)
Eichenlaub v. Twp. of Indiana, 385 F.3d 274 (3d Cir. 2004) (inconsistent applications of zoning not necessarily conscience-shocking)
Memphis Light, Gas & Water Div. v. Craft, 436 U.S. 1 (U.S. 1978) (post-deprivation procedures may be adequate in some contexts)
Chainey v. Street, 523 F.3d 200 (3d Cir. 2008) (shock-the-conscience standard applied to property interests)
Startzell v. City of Philadelphia, 533 F.3d 183 (3d Cir. 2008) (equal protection analysis for class-of-one claims)
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (pleading standards to plausibly allege claims)
New Orleans Waterworks Co. v. La. Sugar Ref. Co., 125 U.S. 18 (1888) (Contract Clause context—legislative action requirement)
Kinney v. Conn. Judicial Dep’t, 974 F.2d 313 (2d Cir. 1992) (contract clause analysis requires legislative action)