Green Genie, Inc. v. City of Detroit, 599 F.Supp.3d 544

Green Genie, owned by Alvin Alosachi, applied in October 2018 for a special land use permit to operate a medical marijuana provisioning center at 16711 Mack Ave., Detroit; the Building Department denied the application as within a 1,000-foot "drug-free zone" of St. Clare of Montefalco School.
The measurement dispute turned on whether the relevant reference point was the platted lot containing the school building or the larger tax parcel/zoning lot (tax parcel ID 3900040147000) that included contiguous platted lots for the school and an adjacent church.
The Building Department and BZA repeatedly measured to the nearest boundary of the single tax parcel (treating "zoning lot" and tax parcel as synonymous); the BZA denied the application after multiple hearings and the Michigan courts affirmed or declined review at stages of the state litigation.
Plaintiffs alleged the City had granted permits to other dispensaries with similar spacing issues (Mack Wellness and Detroit Roots) and asserted federal claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for equal protection, procedural due process, and substantive due process.
The district court granted the City’s summary judgment motion, holding the City’s interpretation of "zoning lot" was reasonable, the plaintiffs failed to show intentional unequal treatment or a protected property interest, and the administrative/judicial process afforded was constitutionally adequate.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Proper measurement / meaning of "zoning lot"	Measure to the platted lot(s) containing the school building only	Measure to the tax parcel/zoning lot comprising all contiguous platted lots under unified ownership	Court adopted City's reasonable construction: measure to the tax parcel/zoning lot; denial proper
Equal protection (class-of-one)	City treated other dispensaries more favorably despite spacing defects	Other approvals were lawful when evaluated; no evidence of intentional discrimination	Plaintiffs failed to negate every conceivable rational basis or show animus; claim fails
Procedural due process / routing of application	Application was misrouted and not sent to the dedicated committee	Plaintiffs had no protected property interest in a permit; they received multiple administrative and judicial hearings	No property interest in a prohibited use; process was ample; claim fails
Substantive due process	Denial was arbitrary, capricious, or conscience-shocking	Zoning denial followed a rational application of the ordinance	No arbitrary or conscience-shocking action; claim fails

Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, 477 U.S. 242 (summary judgment standard)
Village of Willowbrook v. Olech, 528 U.S. 562 (class-of-one equal protection standard)
Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319 (procedural due process balancing)
Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (summary judgment burden-shifting)
Town of Castle Rock v. Gonzales, 545 U.S. 748 (property interest in government benefit)
Daniels v. Williams, 474 U.S. 327 (substantive due process overview)
County of Sacramento v. Lewis, 523 U.S. 833 (conscience-shocking standard)
EJS Properties, LLC v. City of Toledo, 698 F.3d 845 (Sixth Circuit on class-of-one proof)