Kelly Samson v. City of Bainbridge Island, 683 F.3d 1051

Background

The Samsons own waterfront residential property in Blakely Harbor on Bainbridge Island and sought to build a pier during a city moratorium.
Washington shoreline regulation comprises the Shoreline Management Act, Ecology regulations, and local Shoreline Master Programs, with Bainbridge updating its Master Program in 1996.
In 2001 Bainbridge enacted a rolling moratorium on new shoreline developments (docks/pier) and then expanded it, later narrowing to apply to new overwater structures; the moratorium was extended several times to allow Shoreline Master Program revision.
The Biggers v. City of Bainbridge Island state-court case held the rolling moratorium unconstitutional as applied, invalidating the ordinances, but the City pursued stays and appeals.
During the pendency of state litigation, Bainbridge amended its Master Program to permanently ban new docks in Blakely Harbor; the Washington Department of Ecology approved these amendments in early 2004.
The Samsons and others filed federal §1983 claims alleging substantive and procedural due process violations; the district court granted Bainbridge summary judgment, and the Ninth Circuit affirmed no constitutional violation.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Substantive due process violation by moratorium	Samson asserts the moratorium was arbitrary and irrational.	Bainbridge claims the moratorium served legitimate interests in wildlife protection and orderly development.	No: moratorium actions were not clearly arbitrary; they served legitimate interests.
Procedural due process violation by moratorium extensions	Samson contends extensions violated due process by delaying rights without proper procedures.	City Council followed lawful legislative process with notice and hearings.	No: moratorium ordinances were valid legislative acts; due process satisfied.
Standing or cognizable property interest	Samsons had vested rights or similar interest to have permit applications processed under prior rules.	Interest is not clearly vested or protected as a due process property right in this context.	Not necessary to decide standing; even assuming vested rights, no due process violation shown.
Impact of Biggers/state court rulings on §1983 claim	Washington Supreme Court Biggers decision implies constitutional violation by the city.	State-law holdings do not automatically establish federal due process violations.	No: state-law rulings do not compel §1983 liability absent cognizable federal rights.

Key Cases Cited

Monell v. Dep't of Soc. Servs., 436 U.S. 658 (U.S. 1978) (establishes municipal liability under §1983 for official policy or custom)
Memphis Light, Gas & Water Div. v. Craft, 436 U.S. 1 (U.S. 1978) (due process limits on deprivation of property rights)
Gallo v. U.S. Dist. Court, 349 F.3d 1169 (9th Cir. 2003) (defines property interests from state law for due process analysis)
Roth v. State, 408 U.S. 564 (U.S. 1972) (property interests derive from independent state-law rules)
Shanks v. Dressel, 540 F.3d 1082 (9th Cir. 2008) (no heightened scrutiny for non-fundamental due process challenges to regulation)
Lingle v. Chevron U.S.A. Inc., 544 U.S. 528 (U.S. 2005) (no heightened scrutiny for regulatory takings in many cases)
Jackson Water Works, Inc. v. Pub. Utils. Comm'n, 793 F.2d 1090 (9th Cir. 1986) (implicit recognition that some regulatory actions affect economic interests without implicating fundamental rights)
Tahoe-Sierra Pres. Council, Inc. v. Tahoe Reg'l Planning Agency, 535 U.S. 302 (U.S. 2002) (moratoria as permissible interim development controls in regulatory planning)
Bateson v. Geisse, 857 F.2d 1300 (9th Cir. 1988) (arbitrary denial of a legally entitled permit contrasted with legislative moratorium actions)
Halverson v. Skagit County, 42 F.3d 1257 (9th Cir. 1994) (legislative action with broad applicability satisfies due process when following legal procedures)
Biggers v. City of Bainbridge Island, 169 P.3d 14 (Wash. 2007) (state court held rolling moratorium violated state constitution (state-law context))
Samson v. City of Bainbridge Island, 202 P.3d 334 (Wash. Ct. App. 2009) (state appellate upholding permanent amendments to shoreline master program)
Samson v. City of Bainbridge Island, 218 P.3d 921 (Wash. 2009) (Washington Supreme Court denial of review (stay context))