Zia Shadows, L.L.C. v. City of Las Cruces, 2:09-cv-00909

Plaintiffs are Zia Shadows, LLC, and Alex and William Garth, who owned property in Las Cruces intended for a manufactured home community; they pursued Phase II development and later a Planned Unit Development (PUD) after initial permits for Phase I.
City of Las Cruces and William Mattice defendants allegedly delayed approval of Plaintiffs’ PUD and imposed costs (Elks Drive improvements) funded pro-rata by Plaintiffs.
City staff and officials explored a maintenance plan for Elks Drive and required a water rights plan and financial assurances (letter of credit) tied to the development.
Plaintiffs’ amended plan faced repeated delays, a bankruptcy filing, and disputes over responsibility for improvements and financing, culminating in loss of the property in bankruptcy.
Plaintiffs claimed violations of § 1983 for equal protection, due process (procedural and substantive), and First Amendment retaliation; the City moved for summary judgment.
The court granted summary judgment for the City on procedural/substantive due process and equal protection, denied retaliation claim, and dismissed Mattice from the suit.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Plaintiffs have a protectible property interest in approval of the PUD.	Plaintiffs had a legitimate entitlement given zoning process.	City retained broad discretion to approve or deny PUD under code.	No legitimate expectation; City had broad discretion to approve.
Whether Plaintiffs’ equal protection claim shows intentional discrimination against a class of one.	City treated Plaintiffs differently from similarly situated developments.	Plaintiffs failed to show similarly situated comparators and legitimate reasons.	Dismissed for lack of class-of-one evidence.
Whether the First Amendment retaliation claim survives summary judgment.	City delayed approval and imposed burdens due to protected speech at council meetings.	Actions related to PUD do not chill First Amendment rights; motive uncertain.	Retaliation claim survives summary judgment; insufficient evidence to negate motive.

Bd. of Regents of State Colls. v. Roth, 408 U.S. 564 (1972) (constitutional entitlement depends on state law creating a property interest)
Hyde Park Co. v. Santa Fe City Council, 226 F.3d 1207 (10th Cir. 2000) (analysis of legitimate entitlement and discretion in land-use decisions)
Memphis Light, Gas & Water Div. v. Craft, 436 U.S. 1 (1983) (due process entails legitimate claim of entitlement)
Norton v. Vill. of Corrales, 103 F.3d 928 (10th Cir. 1996) (discretion in decisionmakers relevant to entitlement analysis)
Albuquerque Commons Partnership v. City Council, 184 P.3d 411 (N.M. 2008) (limits on discretion in site plan approvals under state law)
Willowbrook v. Olech, 528 U.S. 562 (2000) (class-of-one equal protection standard)
Jicarilla Apache Nation v. Rio Arriba Cnty., 440 F.3d 1202 (10th Cir. 2006) (class-of-one requires showing of similarly situated treated differently)
Jennings v. City of Stillwater, 383 F.3d 1199 (10th Cir. 2004) (need compelling evidence of treated differently for class-of-one)