Huggins v. PRINCE GEORGE'S COUNTY, MD., 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 118959

SADISCO owner of property in Upper Marlboro operated an automobile wholesaling facility.
Plaintiff applied December 20, 2001 for a use and occupancy permit for wholesale/distribution use not conducted on site; permit allegedly approved March 12–18, 2002.
County issued Notices of Violation in October 2002 for grading and trailer-use violations, prompting consent orders on September 3, 2003.
Consent orders required grading permits, erosion control, and vacating unless a valid use and occupancy permit was obtained; a Guardian “diligent pursuit” understanding was alleged.
County barred access to the property in April 2004 under the second consent order; SADISCO filed suit March 30, 2007, asserting substantive due process and related claims.
Court previously granted summary judgment for some counts and denied others; this memorandum resolves the remaining substantive due process claim and related Monell claim against Prince George's County; held that no underlying constitutional violation occurred and Monell fails.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether SADISCO had a constitutionally protected property interest in a use and occupancy permit.	SADISCO possessed a valid permit evidenced by issuance date and permit number.	No final issuance occurred; permits were not legally issued after review by Planning Board and agencies.	No vested property right; no valid use and occupancy permit established.
Whether there is a protectable property interest in the County's express agreement not to close SADISCO’s operation.	County’s oral/express understanding created a property right to continue operations.	State contract rights are not fundamental property interests protected by substantive due process.	No property interest in a state-law contract; Monell claim fails without underlying violation.
Whether Plaintiff can sustain a Monell claim without an underlying constitutional violation by county employees.	Policy/custom established by county actions deprived SADISCO of due process.	No underlying constitutional violation; no basis for Monell liability.	No underlying violation; Monell claim fails; defendant granted summary judgment on §1983 claim.

Monell v. New York City Dept. of Social Servs., 436 U.S. 658 (1978) (municipal liability requires policy or custom, not respondeat superior)
City of Canton v. Harris, 489 U.S. 378 (1989) (municipal liability requires deliberate indifference to risk of violation)
Grayson v. Peed, 195 F.3d 692 (4th Cir. 1999) (no municipal liability without underlying constitutional violation by individuals)
Richmond Corp. v. Bd. of Cnty. Comm'rs for Prince George's Cty., 254 Md. 244 (Md. 1969) (vested right in land use permit requires final inspection/issuance)
Samuels v. Tschechtelin, 135 Md.App. 483 (Md. Ct. App. 2001) (state-law contract not a fundamental right for substantive due process)