[DO N OT PUBLISH]
IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ No. 1 1- 14 94 8

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ D.C. Dock et No. 1 :0 9- cv -0 28 33 -TW T
METROPOLITAN ATLAN TA TASK FORCE FOR THE HO MELESS,
Pl ai nt iff -Ap pe ll an t, ve rs us
CITY OF ATLANTA , GEORGIA,
Defen da nt -Ap pe ll ee.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ App eal fro m

th e Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co ur t fo r th e Nor th ern Dis tri ct of Ge or gi a

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ (J an ua ry 15 , 20 13 )
Befo re BARKETT an d J ORDAN, Circ ui t J ud ge s, an d HODGES, Dis tri ct Ju dg e. *
PER CURI AM:
W he n th e Ci ty o f Atl an ta te rm in at ed wate r se rv ic e, th e M e t r op ol it an Atl an ta
Task Fo rce fo r th e Hom el es s su ed th e Ci ty, al le gi ng br each of co nt ract an d vi ol at io n

The Honor able Wm. Terr ell Hodg es, United States District Judge f or t he Middle District * of F lorida, sitting by

desig nation. Case: 11-14948 Date Filed: 01/15/2013 Page: 1 of 3of it s co ns ti tu ti on al rig ht s pu rs ua nt to 42 U.S.C. § 19 83

. The di st ric t co ur t gr an te d

su m m ary jud gm en t to th e Ci ty on al l of th e Task Fo rce’s cl ai m s an d en te red jud gm en t
in th e am ou nt of $1 47 ,28 8.7 3 on th e Ci ty’ s co un te rcl ai m fo r un pa id wate r an d se wer

se rv ic es
. The Task Fo rce a p p e a l e d. Fo ll owi ng or al arg um en t an d rev ie w of th e

reco rd , we affi rm
. 1. W it h res pe ct to th e Task Fo rce’s Fi rs t Am en dm en t cl ai m , we ag ree wit h th e
di st ric t co ur t th at pa rag rap h 78 of th e Seco nd Am en de d Co m pl ai nt (wh i c h merely
al le ge d t ha t t he Cit y ’s act io ns de pr iv ed th e Tas k Forc e of “ it s rig ht s un de r th e Fi fth

an d Fo ur te en th Am en dm en ts ”) di d no t pr op erl y pl ead a Fi rs t Am en dm en t cl ai m
. Se e
ge ne ra ll y Bell Atl an ti c Co rp . v. Two mbl y, 55 0 U.S. 5 44 , 55 5- 56 (20 07 ).
2. As fo r th e eq ua l pr ot ect io n cl ai m , th e di st ric t co ur t co rrec tl y fo un d th at th e
Task Fo rce di d no t de m on st rat e an eq ua l pr ot ect io n vi ol at io n un de r a “ cl as s of on e”
th eo ry be cau se it fai le d to sh ow it wa s tre at ed di ffer en tl y fro m ot he rs who were
si m il arl y si tu at ed

. Se e Vil la ge of W il lo wb ro ok v. Olec h , 52 8 U.S. 56 2, 56 4 (2 00 0) (p er cu ria m ); Gri

ff in In du s., In c. v. Ir vi n , 49 6 F.3 d 11 89 , 12 02 , 12 07 -0 8 (1 1t h Ci r.
20 07 ).
3. Turn in g to th e d ue pro ces s cl ai m , it fai ls be cau se th e Task Fo rce fai le d to
sh ow th at th ere was a de pr iv at io n cau se d by th e Ci ty an d be cau se th e Task Fo rce do es

no t ha ve a co ns ti tu ti on al ly pr ot ect ed pr op ert y in te res t in th e cert ifi cat es or el ig ib il it y

2 Case: 11-14948 Date Filed: 01/15/2013 Page: 2 of 3fo r gr an ts

. Se e Bd. of Reg en ts of St at e Co ll s. v. Rot h , 40 8 U.S. 56 4, 57 7 (1 97 2)

. As

we a n d o t h e r ci rcu it s ha ve ex pl ai ne d, whe re th e st at ut es or reg ul at io ns fo r th e
is su an ce of pe rm it s, li cen se s, or gr an ts a r e di sc ret io na ry , an ap pl ic an t ha s no
pr ot ect ed pr op ert y in te res t. Se e S pe nc e v. Zi mmerma n , 87 3 F.2d 25 6, 25 8- 59 (1 1t h
Ci r. 19 89 )

. Se e al

so New Y or k St at e Na t’l Org

. For W ome n v. Pat ak i , 26 1 F.3 d 15 6,
16 4 (2 nd Ci r. 20 01 ); Bal dw in v. Dan ie ls , 25 0 F.3 d 94 3, 94 6 (5 th Ci r. 20 01 ); Sh an er
v. Uni te d S ta te s , 97 6 F .2d 99 0, 9 94 -9 5 (6 th Cir . 19 92 ).
4. Fi na ll y , th e di st ric t co ur t pr op erl y gr an te d su m m ary jud gm en t to th e Ci ty on
th e br each of co nt ract cl ai m
. The Task Fo rce ack no wled ge s th at th ere are arre arag es ,

an d reg ard le ss of th e Ci ty’ s act io ns , th e Task Fo rce owe d m on ey fo r it s us e of wate r

se rv ic es
. The Task Fo rce’s as se rti on th at th e Ci ty di d no t read th e wate r m et ers an d

“ en ga ge d in a ge ne ral pr act ic e of ‘esti m at in g,’” se e Bri ef of App el la nt at 3 9, is no t

su pp or te d b y

Mr. Hu nt er’s t es ti m on y
. Se e Hun te r Dep

. 93 -9 4 (Dec. 15 , 20 10 ) (“ Q:
So th en as su m in g th at a m et er can be read an d is no t br ok en , th en th e co ns is te nt

po li cy ha s be en , as y ou un de rs ta nd it , th at an y m et er th at can be read ne ed s to be read
be fo re i t’s b il le d? A: Tha t was cert ai nl y th e p ol ic y .”).
A F F I R M E D .

3 Case: 11-14948 Date Filed: 01/15/2013 Page: 3 of 3