Opinion
Civil Action No. 3:00-CV-2465-D
March 7, 2001
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
This case arises from the denial of a zoning application. Plaintiff Cleburne's Grass Roots, L.L.C. ("Grass Roots"), after unsuccessfully pursuing the zoning permit, filed suit against the City of Cleburne ("the City") and Cleburne City Councilmembers Dale Hannah ("Hannah") and Earl Horton ("Horton") seeking relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. In separate motions, the City moves for a dismissal of Grass Roots' procedural due process claims and Hannah and Horton move for dismissal of Grass Roots' claims in their entirety pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b). For the reasons that follow, the court grants both motions.
I
Grass Roots owns property in Cleburne, Texas that is currently zoned by the City as C2 General Business District. It sought to have the property re-zoned to C2 General Business District (C4) pursuant to the City's C4 Private Club Overlay District ordinance. The re-zoning would allow Grass Roots to serve alcoholic beverages. Grass Roots presented the zoning request to the City Planning and Zoning Commission, which denied the change. Because of the adverse ruling, it was necessary that Grass Roots obtain a super majority of four of the five City Councilmembers' votes to secure approval of its application. The City Council only voted 3-2, however, in favor of the application, with Hannah and Horton casting the two negative votes that effectively denied Grass Roots' request.
For the purposes of deciding defendants' motions to dismiss, the court takes as true the facts alleged by Grass Roots in its complaint. See Royal Bank of Canada v. FDIC, 733 F. Supp. 1091, 1094 (N.D. Tex. 1990) (Fitzwater, I). The court draws all inferences in favor of Grass Roots, the nonmovant. Id.
Grass Roots then filed this suit alleging that the City's denial of the zoning application violated state and local ordinances. Grass Roots asserts that the City and Hannah and Horton violated "rights, privileges or immunities secured by the United States Constitution as well as federal and state laws." P.2d Am. Compl. 4. The City moves for dismissal of Grass Roots' procedural due process claim. Hannah and Horton move to dismiss Grass Roots' claims in their entirety. The court now considers these motions in turn.
II
Grass Roots maintains inter alia that the City violated its procedural due process rights under Fourth, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution. Specifically, it alleges that the City, through Hannah and Horton, "took a plan of action to deny Plaintiffs C4 zoning request and failed to give Grass Roots a meaningful opportunity to be heard in its opposition of such conduct." Id, at 6. According to Grass Roots, during the more than three-year period in which Horton served on the Cleburne City Council, he never voted in favor of a C4 zoning request. During Hannah's more than ten-year term of service, he voted in opposition to 12 of the 13 applications for such a request, later admitting that on the one occasion when he did support such an application, he made a mistake. In light of these voting records, Grass Roots argues, it had no chance of success during the zoning application process and therefore no meaningful opportunity to be heard.
Procedural due process requires adequate notice and an opportunity to be heard "at a meaningful time and in a meaningful manner." Boddie v. Connecticut, 401 U.S. 371, 378 (1971) (citation omitted). The City contends that procedural due process was satisfied because it offered Grass Roots the required notice and opportunity to be heard. In fact, Grass Roots received two hearings, first before the City Planning and Zoning Commission and then before the City Council. In each proceeding it was allowed to attempt to persuade the City to approve its zoning request. Taking advantage of these opportunities, Grass Roots "personally appeared and provided Defendants with all applicable statutes, codes, zoning ordinances and amendments[.]" P.2d Am. Compl. 5. Although Grass Roots succeeded in winning the support of three City Councilmembers, the unfavorable ruling by the Planning and Zoning Commission required that Grass Roots obtain four votes. Although the zoning application was ultimately denied, Grass Roots has not alleged a viable claim for a violation of procedural due process. At most, Grass Roots' claim amounts to a disagreement with Hannah and Horton's record of voting against such zoning requests. A suit seeking relief under § 1983, however, is not the proper forum for this grievance, because § 1983 is not a means for litigating the correctness of state and local legislative decisions. Cf. Creative Environments, Inc. v. Estabrook, 680 F.2d 822, 831 (1st Cir. 1982) ("Virtually every alleged legal or procedural error of a local planning authority or zoning board of appeal could be brought to a federal court on the theory that the erroneous application of state law amounted to a taking of property without due process. Neither Congress nor the courts have, to date, indicated that section 1983 should have such a reach.") The court therefore grants the City's motion to dismiss Grass Roots' procedural due process claim.
Because the City has not raised the issue as a basis for its motion, the court assumes, without deciding, that Grass Roots has a constitutionally protected property interest in the possibility of obtaining the zoning reclassification.
Because plaintiffs action against Hannah and Horton in their official capacities is the same as a suit against the City, see, e.g., Kentucky v. Graham, 473 U.S. 159, 165-66 (1985), the motion, and the court's decision today, also apply to Grass Roots' suit against these defendants in their official capacities.
III
Hannah and Horton argue that they are entitled to absolute immunity for the votes against Grass Roots' zoning application. Grass Roots contends that Hannah and Horton committed an unconstitutional taking of its property, violated its substantive and procedural due process rights, and violated state and local law. To establish each of these alleged violations, Grass Roots relies on Hannah's and Horton's votes to deny the zoning request. Regarding the takings claim, Grass Roots asserts that although its application complied fully with state and local regulation, Hannah and Horton withheld their approval. To support its substantive due process claim, Grass Roots alleges that Hannah and Horton "intentionally and without cause" violated its property right by denying the zoning request. P. Indiv. Br. 5. Finally, Grass Roots argues that because Hannah and Horton never knowingly vote in favor of a zoning request that would allow for the sale and distribution of alcohol, they denied it a meaningful opportunity to be heard.Each of these claims can be reduced to Grass Roots' dissatisfaction with Hannah's and Horton's votes to deny the zoning application. Such official legislative acts cannot give rise to individual liability because regional "legislators are absolutely immune from suit under § 1983 for actions `in the sphere of legitimate legislative activity.'" Lake Country Estates, Inc. v. Tahoe Reg'l Planning Agency, 440 U.S. 391, 403, 405 (1979) (quoting Tenney v. Brandhove, 341 U.S. 367, 376 (1951)). This immunity extends to zoning decisions made by regional government officials because such determinations constitute an exercise of the legislative function. See Calhoun v. St. Bernard Parish, 937 F.2d 172, 174 (5th Cir. 1991). Accordingly, Hannah and Horton are entitled to absolute immunity for their votes to deny Grass Roots' zoning application. The court therefore grants Hannah and Horton's motion to dismiss.
* * *
Defendants' motions to dismiss are granted.