Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-15-01141/USCOURTS-ca10-15-01141-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Board of County Commissioners of Elbert County
Appellee
Compost Express, Inc.
Not Party
Emerald Properties, LLC
Appellant
Local Service Corporation
Not Party
Paul Naftel
Appellant
Shauna Naftel
Appellant
National Association of Home Builders
Amicus Curiae
Onyx Properties LLC
Appellant
Karen L. Rohrbach
Not Party
Kenneth G. Rohrbach
Not Party
Paul K. Rohrbach
Not Party

Document Text:

PUBLISH 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT 

_________________________________ 

ONYX PROPERTIES LLC, a Colorado 

limited liability company; EMERALD 

PROPERTIES, LLC, a Colorado limited 

liability company; PAUL NAFTEL; 

SHAUNA NAFTEL, 

 Plaintiffs - Appellants, 

and 

LOCAL SERVICE CORPORATION, the 

Estate of Chapter 11 Bankruptcy in re: 

Simon E. Rodriquez, Trustee; KENNETH 

G. ROHRBACH; KAREN L. 

ROHRBACH; PAUL K. ROHRBACH; 

COMPOST EXPRESS, INC., a Colorado 

corporation, 

 Plaintiffs, 

v. 

BOARD OF COUNTY 

COMMISSIONERS OF ELBERT 

COUNTY, in its official capacity, 

 Defendant - Appellee. 

------------------------------ 

NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF HOME 

BUILDERS, 

 Amicus Curiae. 

–––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––

No. 15-1141 

FILED 

United States Court of Appeals 

Tenth Circuit 

October 3, 2016

Elisabeth A. Shumaker 

Clerk of Court

Appellate Case: 15-1141 Document: 01019699183 Date Filed: 10/03/2016 Page: 1 
 2 

ROBERT QUINN, an individual; KAREN 

QUINN, an individual; PATRICIA 

RODENZ, an individual; MICHAEL 

MCCLENDON, an individual; DAVID 

AKSLAND, an individual; SEAN 

MULVIHILL, an individual; STEPHEN 

MULVIHILL, an individual; EDWIN 

BAKER, an individual; VIRGINIA 

BAKER, an individual; STAN LYNN, an 

individual; EDWARD LOVELACE, an 

individual; DONNA LOVELACE, an 

individual; EJL ENTERPRISES, INC., a 

Colorado corporation; PRAIRIE LAND, 

LLC, a Colorado limited liability company; 

CRAIG CLAUSEN, an individual; 

KENLOU, LLC, a dissolved Colorado 

corporation; GARY LEVIN, an individual; 

FIDDLEBACK RANCH, LLC, a Colorado 

limited liability company; WILLIAM 

PAUL SUMMERS, an individual; 

EUGENE ERICKSON, an individual; 

ANNE ERICKSON, an individual; LORA 

KRISTA, an individual; REBECCA 

ARNOLD, an individual; DENNIS 

LEONARD, an individual; THOMAS 

MARONEY, an individual; STATION 

GULCH RANCH, LLC, a Colorado 

limited liability company; RICHARD 

O'LEARY, an individual; LINDA 

O'LEARY, an individual; 

MORNINGSTAR DEVELOPMENT, 

LLC, a Colorado limited liability company; 

AMANDA PINES, LLC, a Colorado 

limited liability company; AMANDA 

PINES NORTH, LLC, a Colorado limited 

liability company; LADERO LAND 

DEVELOPMENT, INC., a Colorado 

corporation, 

 Plaintiffs - Appellants, 

v. No. 15-1197 

Appellate Case: 15-1141 Document: 01019699183 Date Filed: 10/03/2016 Page: 2 
 3 

BOARD OF COUNTY 

COMMISSIONERS OF ELBERT 

COUNTY, 

 Defendant - Appellee. 

_________________________________ 

Appeal from the United States District Court 

for the District of Colorado 

(D.C. Nos. 1:13-CV-02818-CMA-NYW and 

1:10-CV-01482-LTB-KLM) 

_________________________________ 

James D. Thorburn, The Law Office of James D. Thorburn, LLC, Greenwood Village, 

Colorado, for Plaintiffs-Appellants. 

Josh A. Marks (Melanie B. Lewis with him on the briefs), Berg Hill Greenleaf & 

Ruscitti, LLC, Boulder, Colorado; for Defendant-Appellee. 

Troy R. Rackham, Fennemore Craig, P.C., filed an Amicus Curiae brief for National 

Association of Home Builders, Denver, Colorado, in support of Appellants. 

_________________________________ 

Before HARTZ, EBEL, and MORITZ, Circuit Judges. 

_________________________________ 

HARTZ, Circuit Judge. 

_________________________________ 

 The plaintiffs in the two cases before us on appeal complain that they were denied 

due process when the Board of County Commissioners of Elbert County (the Board) 

required them to rezone their properties before they could subdivide them. They allege 

that after the Board lost the documents reflecting the prior comprehensive zoning 

ordinance, it created new documents without following proper procedures for enacting an 

ordinance and covered up their misconduct. Perhaps these allegations state a claim under 

Appellate Case: 15-1141 Document: 01019699183 Date Filed: 10/03/2016 Page: 3 
 4 

Colorado law. We hold, however, that the plaintiffs were not deprived of their right to 

due process under the United States Constitution. 

I. BACKGROUND 

The essential facts are undisputed. The Board enacted comprehensive zoning 

regulations on July 5, 1983. The regulations referred to an official county zoning map. 

By 1997, however, the Board had discovered that its files contained only six pages of the 

regulations and no zoning map. It therefore authorized Planning Director Kenneth Wolf 

to research historical zoning information and report his findings in a series of 

replacement maps and zoning regulations (the Wolf Documents). Although no public 

proceedings were conducted to approve the Wolf Documents, county officials treated 

them as authoritative. 

Between 1997 and 2008 a number of landowners in the county sought to 

subdivide their properties into parcels of 35.00 to 59.99 acres. They were informed by 

county officials that their properties were zoned A-Agriculture and that county 

regulations required such land to be rezoned as A-1 to be subdivided. The landowners 

therefore applied to the Board for rezoning, paid the required fees, and obtained approval 

of their applications. Only after incurring substantial expenses did they become aware 

that the Board had not formally adopted the regulations and maps in the Wolf Documents 

that required the rezoning. 

The first landowners to file suit were Onyx Properties, LLC and its coplaintiffs, 

who brought a putative class action in the United States District Court for the District of 

Colorado (the Onyx Litigation). They sought injunctive relief and damages under 42 

Appellate Case: 15-1141 Document: 01019699183 Date Filed: 10/03/2016 Page: 4 
 5 

U.S.C. § 1983, on the grounds that the Board’s actions violated their rights to substantive 

and procedural due process. The district court denied class certification, and this court 

declined to grant a petition for permission to appeal that decision. Robert Quinn and 31 

other landowners who had been members of the putative class then jointly filed suit 

against the Board in the same court (the Quinn Litigation) raising the same claims. 

The district court in Onyx dismissed the substantive-due-process claim on the 

pleadings and granted summary judgment in the Board’s favor on the procedural-dueprocess claim. See Onyx Properties v. Bd. of Cty. Comm’rs, No. 10-cv-01482-LTB-KLM 

(Consolidated w/ 11-cv-02321-RPM-MJW), 2015 WL 1361393, at *7 (D. Colo. Apr. 20, 

2015). In Quinn another judge of the district court initially dismissed the first amended 

complaint without prejudice for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be 

granted. See Quinn v. Bd. of Cty. Comm’rs, No. 13-cv-02818-CMA-BNB, 2015 WL 

3457732, at *1 (D. Colo. June 11, 2015). The plaintiffs responded with a motion to 

permit them to submit a second amended complaint, but the court concluded that the 

amendment would be futile and dismissed both the procedural- and substantive-dueprocess claims with prejudice. See id. at *1, *3; Jefferson Cty. Sch. Dist. No. R-1 v. 

Moody’s Inv’rs Servs., Inc., 175 F.3d 848, 859 (10th Cir. 1999) (leave to amend may be 

denied as futile if the complaint as amended would be subject to dismissal). 

The Quinn plaintiffs appeal the district court’s dismissal of both their proceduraland substantive-due-process claims. The Onyx plaintiffs do not pursue their substantivedue-process claim on appeal, but argue that summary judgment was improperly granted 

on their procedural-due-process claim. 

Appellate Case: 15-1141 Document: 01019699183 Date Filed: 10/03/2016 Page: 5 
 6 

We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §1291. We have consolidated the two cases 

for disposition on appeal and affirm both judgments. We hold that the Board’s adoption 

of the Wolf Documents as the official zoning regulations and maps was a legislative act, 

so the Due Process Clause required no hearing. And the conclusory allegations of coverup and misrepresentation in the Quinn Litigation do not present a plausible substantivedue-process claim.1

II. DISCUSSION 

We review de novo a district court’s order granting summary judgment, “applying 

the same standards that the district court should have applied.” Schanzenbach v. Town of 

Opal, Wyo., 706 F.3d 1269, 1272 (10th Cir. 2013) (internal quotation marks omitted). 

“Summary judgment is appropriate if the pleadings and the record establish that there is 

no genuine issue of material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a 

matter of law.” Id. “We [likewise] review the district court’s order of dismissal de novo, 

accepting the complaint[‘s] well-pleaded factual allegations as true.” Hyde Park Co. v. 

Santa Fe City Council, 226 F.3d 1207, 1209 (10th Cir. 2000). To survive a motion to 

dismiss under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6), a claim for relief must plead sufficient facts to 

 

1

 In light of this disposition, we need not address the Onyx plaintiffs’ arguments 

concerning denial of class certification or the prudential standing of a coplaintiff because 

any potential claims based on the same alleged due-process violations must also fail. See 

In re Krause, 637 F.3d 1160, 1168 (10th Cir. 2011) (“Unlike certain other statutory or 

constitutional jurisdictional questions, the resolution of a sticky prudential standing 

question may be bypassed in favor of deciding the case on the merits when it’s clear that 

the appellant will lose there anyway.”); Wiesmueller v. Kosobucki, 513 F.3d 784, 787 

(7th Cir. 2008) (the question of class certification is moot when the claim is resolved on 

grounds that would be equally applicable to any other class member). 

Appellate Case: 15-1141 Document: 01019699183 Date Filed: 10/03/2016 Page: 6 
 7 

support a reasonable inference that the defendant is liable as alleged. See JordanArapahoe, LLP v. Bd. of Cty. Comm’rs, 633 F.3d 1022, 1025 (10th Cir. 2011). 

The Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment prohibits the state from 

depriving any person “of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.” U.S. 

Const. amend. XIV, § 1. “Procedural due process ensures the state will not deprive a 

party of property without engaging fair procedures to reach a decision, while substantive 

due process ensures the state will not deprive a party of property for an arbitrary reason 

regardless of the procedures used to reach that decision.” Hyde Park, 226 F.3d at 1210. 

The Board argues that plaintiffs have no constitutional claim because their interest in how 

their land is zoned is not a “property” interest protected by the Due Process Clause. But 

it is unnecessary for us to decide this issue because even assuming all plaintiffs possessed 

a constitutionally protected property interest, they must still be denied relief.2

 

A. Procedural Due Process

“The essence of procedural due process is the provision to the affected party of 

some kind of notice and . . . some kind of hearing.” Moore v. Bd. of Cty. Comm’rs, 507 

 

2 Federal Lands Legal Consortium v. United States, 195 F.3d 1190, 1195 (10th Cir. 

1999), suggested that American Manufacturers Mutual Insurance Co. v. Sullivan, 526 

U.S. 40, 59 (1999), requires us always to address the existence of a protected property 

interest when considering a due-process claim. “We are bound by the precedent of prior 

panels absent en banc reconsideration or a superseding contrary decision by the Supreme 

Court.” United States v. Killion, 7 F.3d 927, 930 (10th Cir. 1993). But there is now 

contrary Supreme Court authority. See City of Cuyahoga Falls v. Buckeye Cmty. Hope 

Found., 538 U.S. 188, 198 (2003) (declining to decide whether respondents possessed a 

property interest in building permits because their substantive-due-process claim would 

fail anyway). Therefore, neither Federal Lands nor Nichols v. Board of Cty. Comm’rs, 

506 F.3d 962, 969 n.2 (10th Cir. 2007), which relied on Federal Lands without 

discussing City of Cuyahoga Falls, remains binding on this point. 

Appellate Case: 15-1141 Document: 01019699183 Date Filed: 10/03/2016 Page: 7 
 8 

F.3d 1257, 1259 (10th Cir. 2007) (internal quotation marks omitted). The plaintiffs do 

not clearly articulate what notice or what hearing they should have received, but we 

understand their arguments as focusing on the failure of the Board to follow required 

state procedures for the enactment of a zoning ordinance before it implemented the Wolf 

Documents as if they were validly promulgated.3

 Colorado law requires that “before the 

adoption of any zoning resolutions, the board of county commissioners shall hold a 

public hearing thereon, the time and place of which at least fourteen days’ notice shall be 

given.” Colo. Rev. Stat. § 30-28-112. 

Violation of state procedural requirements, however, does not in itself deny 

federal constitutional due process. See Guttman v. Khalsa, 669 F.3d 1101, 1115 (10th 

Cir. 2012) (“A failure to comply with state or local procedural requirements does not 

necessarily constitute a denial of federal due process; the alleged violation must result in 

a procedure which itself falls short of standards derived from the Due Process Clause.” 

(brackets and internal quotation marks omitted)); Rector v. City & Cty. of Denver, 348 

 

3

 The Onyx plaintiffs argue, “Since the Wolf Maps and Wolf Regulations were adopted 

without any process, and these documents were enforced against the [plaintiffs], the 

documents took away the [plaintiffs’] property rights to develop their properties in 

violation of the due process clause.” Onyx Properties, et al. v. Board of County 

Commissioners of Elbert County, No. 15-1141, Aplt. Br. at 8. The Quinn plaintiffs’ 

proposed second amended complaint alleges: “Rather than taking the constitutional route 

in holding a due process hearing to adopt the maps. . . , the [Board] implemented a 

clandestine policy that [Wolf] would create zoning maps and then sign them himself 

. . . . The County then represented that the Wolf Maps were the ‘official’ 1983 maps of 

the County’s 1983 zoning regulations.” Robert Quinn, et al. v. Board of County 

Commissioners of Elbert County, No. 15-1197, Proposed Second Am. Compl., Aplt. App. 

Vol. II at 365 ¶ ¶ 30-31. 

Appellate Case: 15-1141 Document: 01019699183 Date Filed: 10/03/2016 Page: 8 
 9 

F.3d 935, 947 (10th Cir. 2003) (“It is well established . . . that a state’s violation of its 

own laws does not create a claim under § 1983.”); Norton v. Vill. of Corrales, 103 F.3d 

928, 930 (10th Cir. 1996) (“[T]he result of error in the administration of state law [the 

failure to properly publish an ordinance], though injury may result, is not a matter of 

federal judicial cognizance under the due process clause of the fourteenth amendment.” 

(internal quotation marks omitted)); see also Gryger v. Burke, 334 U.S. 728, 731 (1948) 

(“We cannot treat a mere error of state law, if one occurred, as a denial of due process; 

otherwise, every erroneous decision by a state court on state law would come here as a 

federal constitutional question.”). Hence, two cases relied on by the plaintiffs—Carter v. 

City of Salina, 773 F.2d 251, 255 (10th Cir. 1985), and Bd. of Cty. Comm’rs v. Rohrbach, 

226 P.3d 1184, 1186 (Colo. App. 2009)—are irrelevant to our analysis because they 

decided only the requirements of state law. 

We therefore turn to what the federal Constitution requires. As the following 

analysis shows, the plaintiffs have failed to present a federal violation because the 

adoption of a general zoning law is a legislative act, and the Supreme Court long ago 

established that the federal Constitution does not require a hearing on the adoption of 

legislation. 

Early in the last century the Supreme Court held that constitutional procedural due 

process does not govern the enactment of legislation. See Bi-Metallic Inv. Co. v. State 

Bd. of Equalization, 239 U.S. 441, 445 (1915). In Bi-Metallic the Colorado Tax 

Commission and the State Board of Equalization had ordered a 40% increase in the 

valuation of all taxable property in Denver. See id. at 443. The plaintiff sued to enjoin 

Appellate Case: 15-1141 Document: 01019699183 Date Filed: 10/03/2016 Page: 9 
 10 

enforcement of the order on the ground that it had been denied its due-process right to be 

heard. See id. at 444. The Court held that a hearing was not constitutionally required for 

each affected landowner before the adoption of a generally applicable tax increase. See 

id. at 445. It explained that such a requirement would be too burdensome, and the public 

had other means of influencing legislative decisions: 

Where a rule of conduct applies to more than a few people, it is 

impracticable that everyone should have a direct voice in its adoption. The 

Constitution does not require all public acts to be done in town meeting or 

an assembly of the whole. General statutes within the state power are 

passed that affect the person or property of individuals, sometimes to the 

point of ruin, without giving them a chance to be heard. Their rights are 

protected in the only way that they can be in a complex society, by their 

power, immediate or remote, over those who make the rule. If the result in 

this case had been reached, as it might have been by the state’s doubling the 

rate of taxation, no one would suggest that the 14th Amendment was 

violated unless every person affected had been allowed an opportunity to 

raise his voice against it before the body intrusted by the state Constitution 

with the power. . . . There must be a limit to individual argument in such 

matters if government is to go on. 

Id. As the Supreme Court wrote decades after Bi-Metallic: 

In altering substantive rights through enactment of rules of general 

applicability, a legislature generally provides constitutionally adequate 

process simply by enacting the statute, publishing it, and, to the extent the 

statute regulates private conduct, affording those within the statute’s reach a 

reasonable opportunity both to familiarize themselves with the general 

requirements imposed and to comply with those requirements. 

United States v. Locke, 471 U.S. 84, 108 (1985); see Logan v. Zimmerman Brush Co., 

455 U.S. 422, 433 (1982) (a “legislative determination [terminating a welfare program or 

granting defenses and immunities to state officials] provides all the process that is due”). 

“[T]he general theory of republican government is not due process through individual 

hearings and the application of standards of behavior, but through elective representation, 

Appellate Case: 15-1141 Document: 01019699183 Date Filed: 10/03/2016 Page: 10 
 11 

partisan politics, and the ultimate sovereignty of the people to vote out of office those 

legislators who are unfaithful to the public will.” Rogin v. Bensalem Twp., 616 F.2d 680, 

694 (3d Cir. 1980). 4

We recognize that not all actions by municipal boards are legislative. When the 

action has a limited focus (only a few people or properties are affected) and is based on 

grounds that are individually assessed, it may be more adjudicative than legislative and 

therefore subject to traditional procedural requirements of notice and hearing. Thus, BiMetallic distinguished the Court’s earlier decision in Londoner v. City and Cty. of 

Denver, 210 U.S. 373 (1908), which held that constitutional due process required a 

hearing, because in the earlier case the “board had to determine whether, in what amount, 

and upon whom a tax for paving a street should be levied . . . [and a] relatively small 

number of persons was concerned, who were exceptionally affected, in each case upon 

individual grounds.” Bi-Metallic, 239 U.S. at 446 (internal quotation marks omitted). In 

such circumstances the need for additional procedural protections is greater because 

 

4

 The following sentence in Bi-Metallic may be misleading if read out of context: “In 

considering this case in this court we must assume that the proper state machinery has 

been used, and the question is whether, if the state Constitution had declared that Denver 

had been undervalued as compared with the rest of the state, and had decreed that for the 

current year the valuation should be 40 per cent higher, the objection now urged could 

prevail.” 239 U.S. at 445 (emphasis added). This might be taken as a suggestion that 

there could have been a due-process violation had the tax assessment been promulgated 

contrary to state law. But earlier in the opinion the Court had said, “With these 

suggestions [based on state law] we have nothing to do. They are matters purely of state 

law.” Id. at 444. Thus, the “we must assume” language appears to be no more than a 

statement that the Court assumes that state law was followed because compliance with 

state law was not pertinent to its analysis. We are aware of no authority that has 

interpreted the Bi-Metallic sentence as stating that a violation of state law constitutes a 

denial of due process. 

Appellate Case: 15-1141 Document: 01019699183 Date Filed: 10/03/2016 Page: 11 
 12 

political remedies are often unattainable by individuals or small groups, see Ind. Land 

Co., LLC v. City of Greenwood, 378 F.3d 705, 710 (7th Cir. 2004), and the grant of 

procedural safeguards to a few does not impose as great a burden on government. See 

Kaahumanu v. Cty. of Maui, 315 F.3d 1215, 1220–21 (9th Cir. 2003) (decision to grant or 

deny conditional-use permit was administrative action distinguishable from legislative 

enactment of a general zoning ordinance). 

Bi-Metallic controls here because adoption of a general zoning ordinance is 

legislative action. In distinguishing between legislative and administrative action, some 

courts have considered “the nature of the decisionmaking body” as elected or appointed; 

the type of decision (the adoption of a “comprehensive plan” or just the grant of a 

variance); and whether the action involves “general policy formulations, which are 

considered legislative, [or] specific applications of previously formulated policy, which 

are considered administrative.” Developments in the Law—Zoning, 91 Harv. L. Rev. 

1427, 1509 (1978). Others have focused on (1) the “particularity of the impact of the 

state action,” and (2) the factual basis for the action—legislation is typically based on 

“generalizations concerning a policy or state of affairs” that “do not usually concern the 

immediate parties but . . . help the tribunal decide questions of law, policy, and 

discretion,” whereas administrative action is typically based on adjudicative facts that 

“relate with greater specificity to individuals or particular situations.” Id. at 1510−11; see, 

e.g., Hughes v. Tarrant Cty., 948 F.2d 918, 921 (5th Cir. 1991) (using these two factors 

to assess whether action was legislative for purposes of legislative immunity); Crymes v. 

DeKalb Cty., 923 F.2d 1482, 1485 (11th Cir. 1991) (same); see also L C & S, Inc. v. 

Appellate Case: 15-1141 Document: 01019699183 Date Filed: 10/03/2016 Page: 12 
 13 

Warren Cty. Area Plan Comm’n, 244 F.3d 601, 604 (7th Cir. 2001) (“[T]he generality 

and consequences[] of an enactment determine whether it is really legislation or really 

something else.”); Harris v. Cty. of Riverside, 904 F.2d 497, 501–02 (9th Cir. 1990) 

(“[T]he character of the action, rather than its label, determines whether those affected by 

it are entitled to constitutional due process.”); Cherry Hills Resort v. Cherry Hills Vill., 

757 P.2d 622, 625 (Colo. 1988) (“Legislative action is usually reflective of some public 

policy relating to matters of a permanent or general character, is not normally restricted 

to identifiable persons or groups, and is usually prospective in nature.”). 

Under any of these standards, the adoption of a comprehensive zoning ordinance 

is a legislative act. A zoning plan is based on community-wide development goals, not 

on the particular facts of individual situations. See Developments, 91 Harv. L. Rev. at 

1512–13. It involves the discretionary implementation of prospective policies rather than 

the application of an existing policy to a specific landowner. See Rogin, 616 F.2d at 693. 

Zoning plans are generally applicable even though their impact may be felt differently by 

specific landowners. See id. at 693 & n.60. 

The case law in our fellow circuits reflects this view. See, e.g., Smithfield 

Concerned Citizens v. Town of Smithfield, 907 F.2d 239, 245 (1st Cir. 1990) (enactment 

of zoning ordinance is a legislative act); Cty. Concrete Corp. v. Town of Roxbury, 442 

F.3d 159, 169 (3d Cir. 2006) (municipal body’s act of recommending or voting for 

change in permitted uses in a zoning district is legislative in character); Jackson Court 

Condos., Inc. v. City of New Orleans, 874 F.2d 1070, 1072, 1076 (5th Cir. 1989) 

(moratorium on establishment of time-share condominiums in residential area was a 

Appellate Case: 15-1141 Document: 01019699183 Date Filed: 10/03/2016 Page: 13 
 14 

legislative zoning decision of broad applicability to which no procedural-due-process 

rights attached); Dennis v. Vill. of Tonka Bay, 156 F.2d 672, 674 (8th Cir. 1946) 

(enactment of zoning ordinance is “legislative in character”); Kuzinich v. Santa Clara 

Cty., 689 F.2d 1345, 1349 (9th Cir. 1982) (“[T]he enactment of a general zoning 

ordinance is a legislative act.”); Kentner v. City of Sanibel, 750 F.3d 1274, 1280 (11th 

Cir. 2014) (generally applicable, prospective, policy-making zoning ordinance restricting 

building of docks and piers is a legislative act); see also Calvert v. Safranek, 

209 F. App’x 816, 819 (10th Cir. 2006) (“In Colorado, adopting zoning ordinances is a 

legislative function entrusted to the boards of county commissioners.”). 

To be sure, state-required enactment procedures may not have been followed when 

the Board endorsed the Wolf Documents. But failure to comply with these procedures 

does not make the Board’s action nonlegislative. When the issue is whether a hearing 

was constitutionally required before taking official action, the focus is on the nature of 

that action. A procedural failure in the approval process may render legislation invalid 

under state law but does not change its character as legislation. See Hoffman v. City of 

Warwick, 909 F.2d 608, 620–21 (1st Cir. 1990) (uniform policy decision not to enforce 

statute that provided seniority benefits “was a legislative-type decision for which no 

individual hearing was necessary” despite the failure to follow proper state procedures to 

repeal the statute before ceasing to provide the entitlement); Smith v. City of Picayune, 

795 F.2d 482, 488 (5th Cir. 1986) (enactment of zoning ordinance without notice or 

hearing required by state law did not support a procedural-due-process claim). We do not 

read Abraham v. Pekarski, 728 F.2d 167, 174 (3d Cir. 1984), relied on by the plaintiffs, 

Appellate Case: 15-1141 Document: 01019699183 Date Filed: 10/03/2016 Page: 14 
 15 

as holding to the contrary because it involved a clearly nonlegislative act—the firing of 

an employee. See Acierno v. Cloutier, 40 F.3d 597, 614 (3d Cir. 1994) (“We reject the 

notion that our decision in Abraham stands for the broad proposition that a mere technical 

violation of the statutory procedures specified for legislative action, by itself, converts an 

otherwise legislative action into an administrative action.”). 

The plaintiffs point to circuit-court decisions requiring notice and a hearing before 

a zoning change that affects only one or a few parcels. But those decisions do not cast 

doubt on the legislative nature of general zoning decisions, and at least one other circuit 

court has held that even such limited zoning changes may be legislative in nature so that 

no hearing is required. Compare Nasierowski Bros. Inv. Co. v. City of Sterling Heights, 

949 F.2d 890, 896 (6th Cir. 1991) (notice and a hearing were required before amending a 

zoning map that impacted only a few landowners and was targeted at the plaintiff’s 

property, even though a generally applicable policy-based zoning law would not warrant 

such protections), and Harris, 904 F.2d at 502, 504 (although a general zoning plan 

amendment is a legislative act that “would not ordinarily give rise to constitutional 

procedural due process requirements,” individualized notice was required before a 

decision to rezone that affected only two landowners, was distinct from the general 

amendment, and specifically targeted the plaintiff’s property), with L C & S, 244 F.3d at 

604–05 (amendment to zoning ordinance requiring taverns to obtain permission to open 

in commercial district, which was enacted to prevent plaintiffs from opening a bar, was 

legislative because the imposition of greater regulation on taverns was a policy decision 

that would apply to any would-be tavern owners). 

Appellate Case: 15-1141 Document: 01019699183 Date Filed: 10/03/2016 Page: 15 
 16 

In any event Nasierowski and Harris do not assist the plaintiffs here. The 

plaintiffs do not argue that the Wolf Documents were targeted at them or that the 

documents were not generally applicable statements of county policy regarding 

development. On the contrary, they contend that the documents constitute a zoning 

ordinance subject to state requirements for the adoption of such ordinances. The zoning 

requirements imposed by the Wolf Documents were of the type that all courts recognize 

would not be subject to a due-process hearing requirement. We hold that the Board’s 

adoption of the Wolf Documents was a legislative act and that the federal Constitution 

did not afford the plaintiffs the right to a hearing. This does not mean that they have no 

remedy for the alleged violation of state procedures. It is just that they must seek that 

remedy under state law. 

B. Substantive Due Process 

The Due Process Clause contains a substantive component that bars “certain 

governmental actions regardless of the fairness of the procedures used to implement 

them.” Daniels v. Williams, 474 U.S. 327, 331 (1986). The plaintiffs allege that the 

Board’s misrepresentation of the Wolf Documents as the official zoning regulations and 

its cover-up of the manner of their adoption were violations of substantive due process. 

They are not complaining that a properly enacted zoning ordinance identical to what 

appears in the Wolf Documents would violate substantive due process. Cf. Lingle v. 

Chevron, 544 U.S. 528, 540–41 (2005) (“[A] municipal zoning ordinance [will] survive a 

substantive due process challenge so long as it [is] not clearly arbitrary and unreasonable, 

having no substantial relation to the public health, safety, morals, or general welfare.” 

Appellate Case: 15-1141 Document: 01019699183 Date Filed: 10/03/2016 Page: 16 
 17 

(emphasis and internal quotations marks omitted)). Rather, they focus on the alleged 

misrepresentations and cover-up that the Board employed to enforce the Wolf 

Documents. These alleged acts were clearly executive, so we apply principles of 

substantive due process that govern executive action. 

When analyzing executive action, “only the most egregious official conduct can be 

said to be arbitrary in the constitutional sense.” Cty. of Sacramento v. Lewis, 523 U.S. 

833, 846 (1998) (internal quotation marks omitted). Intentionally or recklessly causing 

injury through the abuse or misuse of governmental power is not enough. See Klen v. 

City of Loveland, Colo., 661 F.3d 498, 513 (10th Cir. 2011). The actions “must 

demonstrate a degree of outrageousness and a magnitude of potential or actual harm that 

is truly conscience shocking.” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted). 

The restricted scope of substantive-due-process claims reflects “the concern that 

§ 1983 not replace state tort law” and “the need to give deference to local policymaking 

bodies’ decisions.” Id. This restricted scope is readily apparent in cases involving land 

use. The plaintiffs in Klen, who were developers attempting to obtain building permits, 

see id. at 501–02, alleged “that the defendants ‘engaged in a continuous campaign of 

harassment, deceit, and delay . . . intended to injure [the plaintiffs] . . . in a way 

unjustifiable by any government interest,’” id. at 511. They claimed that they had 

suffered malicious delay in the issuance of building permits, the imposition of conditions 

and fees not authorized by law, and retaliatory citations and further delay after they 

complained. See id. at 511–12 & n.6. We acknowledged that arbitrary deprivation of a 

property right may violate substantive due process if the arbitrariness is extreme, but we 

Appellate Case: 15-1141 Document: 01019699183 Date Filed: 10/03/2016 Page: 17 
 18 

concluded that the alleged misconduct was not conscience shocking, noting that “[m]any 

of their complaints are examples of the kind of disagreement that is frequent in planning 

disputes.” Id. at 512–13 (internal quotation marks omitted). 

Other circuits have made clear how high the substantive-due-process bar is in this 

context. The First Circuit has “consistently held that the due process clause may not 

ordinarily be used to involve federal courts in the rights and wrongs of local planning 

disputes” and has limited relief to “truly horrendous situations.” Nestor Colon Medina & 

Sucesores, Inc. v. Custodio, 964 F.2d 32, 45 (1st Cir. 1992) (political manipulation of the 

permitting process did not violate substantive due process); see also Mongeau v. City of 

Marlborough, 492 F.3d 14, 19–20 (1st Cir. 2007) (allegations of hostility and animus 

motivating the denial of a building permit were not conscience shocking); cf. Nestor 

Colon, 964 F.2d at 47 (suggesting that bribery or threats may violate substantive due 

process). 

Eichenlaub v. Township of Indiana, 385 F.3d 274, 286 (3d Cir. 2004), affirmed the 

dismissal of a substantive-due-process claim based on allegations of unnecessary 

inspections and enforcement actions, unequal application of subdivision requirements, 

delayed permits and approvals, and improperly increased tax assessments. The court said 

that the described misconduct did not “rise sufficiently above that at issue in a normal 

zoning dispute to pass the ‘shocks the conscience test.’” Id. It noted that there were no 

allegations of corruption or self-dealing, interference with constitutionally protected 

activity on the property, bias against an ethnic group, or a virtual taking of property 

rights. See id.

Appellate Case: 15-1141 Document: 01019699183 Date Filed: 10/03/2016 Page: 18 
 19 

Two circuits have set especially strict standards. The Sixth Circuit has held that in 

the zoning context even allegations of corruption are insufficient. See EJS Props., LLC v. 

City of Toledo, 698 F.3d 845, 851, 862 (6th Cir. 2012) (denial of rezoning because 

plaintiff refused to give large donation to local retirement fund did not shock the 

conscience). And in Chesterfield Development Corp. v. City of Chesterfield, 963 F.2d 

1102, 1103–05 (8th Cir. 1992), the Eighth Circuit held that there was no violation of 

substantive due process when the city enforced a comprehensive zoning ordinance that 

was invalid under state law because the city had failed to provide proper notice before 

adopting it and had failed to properly file the plan. Although the city did not know the 

ordinance was invalid at the time, the court stated that “[o]ur decision would be the same 

even if the City had knowingly enforced the invalid zoning ordinance in bad faith . . . . A 

bad-faith violation of state law remains only a violation of state law.” Id. at 1105. 

We need not go so far. There is no allegation here of corruption, self-dealing, or 

bias against any protected group or activity. The proposed second amended complaint 

conclusorily alleges clandestine activity and a cover-up, but quotes a transcript of a 

public Board meeting in August 1997 where the loss of the zoning map is disclosed. 

The Quinn plaintiffs assert that, at a minimum, the question of whether the 

Board’s conduct was sufficiently arbitrary to violate substantive due process was a 

factual issue that should have gone to a jury. But “[t]he ultimate standard for determining 

whether there has been a substantive due process violation is whether the challenged 

government action shocks the conscience of federal judges.” Klen, 661 F.3d at 513. The 

Appellate Case: 15-1141 Document: 01019699183 Date Filed: 10/03/2016 Page: 19 
 20 

district court properly dismissed the substantive-due-process claim and refused to permit 

the second amended complaint. 

III. CONCLUSION 

 We AFFIRM the judgments of the district court. 

Appellate Case: 15-1141 Document: 01019699183 Date Filed: 10/03/2016 Page: 20