Onyx Properties LLC v. Board of County Commissioners
838 F.3d 1039
| 10th Cir. | 2016Background
- In 1983 Elbert County enacted comprehensive zoning regulations referencing an official zoning map; by 1997 the county’s files lacked the map and most of the regulations.
- The Board authorized Planning Director Kenneth Wolf to reconstruct zoning information; Wolf produced replacement maps and regulations (the "Wolf Documents") that county officials treated as authoritative despite no formal public adoption or hearings.
- Between 1997–2008 multiple landowners applied to rezone parcels (incurring fees and expenses) because county officials told them their land was zoned A and required rezoning to subdivide—later learning the Wolf Documents had not been formally adopted.
- Onyx Properties brought a putative class action seeking injunctive relief and § 1983 damages for procedural and substantive due-process violations; Quinn and others later sued raising similar claims. District courts dismissed or granted summary judgment against plaintiffs on due-process claims.
- The Tenth Circuit consolidated appeals and affirmed, holding (1) adoption/use of the Wolf Documents was legislative in nature so no constitutional hearing was required, and (2) plaintiffs’ substantive-due-process allegations (cover-up/misrepresentation) were not conscience-shocking.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether plaintiffs were denied procedural due process by enforcement of Wolf Documents without statutorily required hearings | Board enforced zoning changes without holding statutorily mandated public hearings, depriving property rights | Adoption/use of Wolf Documents was legislative—no individual hearing required under the Due Process Clause | Adoption was legislative; Bi-Metallic governs; no constitutional right to hearing (state-law remedies only) |
| Whether failure to follow Colorado procedures transforms the action into adjudicative/governmental action requiring hearings | Procedural defects converted the action into individualized adjudication requiring process | Failure to follow state procedures does not change the character of a legislative act; federal due process not coextensive with state law | Procedural violation of state law does not, by itself, create a federal due-process violation; action remained legislative |
| Whether alleged misrepresentation/cover-up by county officials states a substantive-due-process violation | County’s deception and cover-up intentionally deprived owners of property interests and warrants § 1983 relief | Allegations amount to local planning misconduct; absent extreme official conduct, no substantive-due-process violation | Dismissed: allegations not conscience-shocking; no corruption, self-dealing, or extraordinary conduct shown |
| Whether plaintiffs may pursue federal relief despite state-law remedies and class-cert/prudential standing issues | Class claims and standing adequate; federal remedy appropriate | Even if state-law remedies exist, federal due-process standards control and plaintiffs fail under them | Court need not resolve class/standing because merits fail; plaintiffs lose on federal due-process grounds |
Key Cases Cited
- Bi-Metallic Inv. Co. v. State Bd. of Equalization, 239 U.S. 441 (establishes that generally applicable legislative actions do not require individual hearings)
- United States v. Locke, 471 U.S. 84 (legislative enactment and publication can provide constitutionally adequate process)
- Londoner v. City and County of Denver, 210 U.S. 373 (distinguishes individualized adjudicative proceedings that require hearings)
- Lingle v. Chevron, 544 U.S. 528 (zoning ordinances survive substantive-due-process challenge unless arbitrary and unreasonable)
- Klen v. City of Loveland, Colo., 661 F.3d 498 (10th Cir.) (substantive-due-process claim requires conscience-shocking executive conduct)