N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
VALHALLA C USTOM HOM ES, LLC , Ore g on lim ite d lia

b ility c om pa ny , Pla i ntiff-Appe lla

nt,
v. C ITY OF POR T LAND, a n Ore gon M unic ipa l C orporation; e t a l.,

De fe nda n ts-Appe lle e s. No. 22-35303 D.C . No. 3:21-c v-00225-JR
M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Distric t of Ore gon Karin J. Im

m e rgut, Distric t Judge , Pre siding Subm itte d

June 15, 2023 ** Portla nd, Ore gon B e fore : TALLM AN, R

AW LINSON, a

nd SUNG, C irc u it Judge s. Va lha lla C ustom Hom e s , LLC (Va lha lla ) a ppe a ls the dism issa l of its c la im s
arising unde r 42 U.S.C . § 1983 a ga inst theC ity of Portla nd a nd va rious c ity 

# F IL ED JUL 24 2023 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U
. S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by Ninth C irc uit R

ule 36-3.

* * The pa

ne l una nim ously c onc lude s this c a se is suita ble for de c ision without ora l a

rgum e nt. Se e Fe d. R . App. P. 34(a )(2).offic ia ls (c olle c tive ly , Appe lle e s). Va lha lla ra ise d c o nstitutiona

l c ha lle n ge s to provisions of Portla

n d C ity C ode (PC C ) 17.28.110, a nd a polic y

(DRP 6.03) of the Dire c t or of Portla

nd’ s B ure a

u of Tra nsporta tion (PB OT) re quiring a

tta c he d dwe llings on a

butting lots in Portla

nd to sha re a drive way . R e vie wing d

e nov o , we
a ffirm
. Se e Murguia v
. Langdon , 61 F.4th 1096, 1106 (9th C ir. 2023). 1. PC C 17.28.110 a

nd DR P 6.03 a re not unc onstitutiona

lly va gue . Nota

bly , Va lha lla doe s not a d dre ss the la

ngua ge of e ithe r provision, but blindly a sse rts tha

t the p rovisions a

re va gue be c a

use the y fa il to a de quate ly c onve y what c onduc t is prohibite d a

nd be c a use the y e nc oura ge arbitra

ry e nforc e m e nt by

“ v e st[ing] unfe tte re d disc re tion in the Dire c tor.” PC C 17.28.110.C .5 provide s tha t the Dire c tor “ m ay

re quire joint or sha

re d
use of a drive way by

two prope rtie s in sepa

ra te owne rship” and “ e sta blish
c onditions re g a

rding the num

be r, c onfigura

tion, a nd use of drive way s ne c e ssa ry to . . . pre se rve on-stre e t pa

rking.” DR

P 6.03 “ c la

rif[ie d] the re quire m e nts for sha re d drive way s.”

“ [P] e ople of ordina

ry inte llige nc e ” would unde rsta nd tha t PC C 17.28.110
and DR P 6.03 a uthoriz e the Dire c tor to re quire atta c he d dwe llings on a butting lots to sha re a drive way . Hill v . C

olorado , 530 U.S. 703, 732 (2000). The Dire c tor’ s disc re tion unde r DRP 6.03 wa s not unfe tte re d, a s the Polic y wa s lim ite d by

PC C
217.28.110, whic h re stric te d the purpose s for whic h the Dire c tor c ould re quire

sha re d drive way

use and for whic h the Dire c tor m ay grant va rian c e s. Se e PC C 17.28.110.C .4-5. 2. Va lha lla

doe s not posse ss a

prope rty inte re st prote c t e d by

e ithe r the proc e d ura l or substa

ntive c om pone nt of the Fourte e nth Am e ndm e nt’ s Due Proc e s s C la use . A c o nstitutiona

lly prote c te d prope rty

inte re st in a

pe rm it a rise s “ [o] nly

if the g ove rning sta

tute c om pe ls a re sult upon c om

plia nc e with c e rta in c rite ria , none of whic h involvethe e xe rc ise of disc re t ion by the re v ie wing body [.] ” S hank s v . Dre sse l , 540 F.3d 1082, 1091 (9th C ir. 2008) (c ita t ion a nd inte rna l quota

tion m arks
om i tte d); se e also id. at 1087 (“ To sta te a substa ntive due proc e ss c la i m , the pla i ntiff m

ust show a s a

thre shold m atte r that a

sta t e a c tor de prive d it of a
c onstitutiona

lly prote c te d life , libe rty , or prope rty inte re st. . . .” ) (c ita

tion omitte d). None of the sta

tute s tha t Va lha lla ide ntifie s pre s c ribe issua n c e of a drive way pe rm it a c c ording to non-discre tiona ry c rite ria , and the Dire c tor’ s de c ision to issue
a drive way pe rm it unde r DRP 6.03 wa s disc re tiona ry . Se e DRP 6.03 (“ Any
va rianc e from

the se sta nda rds re quire s form a l re vie w a nd a pprova l by

PB O T through a Drive w ay

De s ign Exc e p tion [R ] e que st.” ). And the re q uire m e nt of “ c le a

r
and obje c tive sta

nda rds” unde r Ore gon sta

tute s doe s not ne c e ssa

rily im plynondisc re tiona

ry c rite ria
. S

e e , e . g . , Robe rts v . C

i ty of C annon Be ac h , 504 P.3d 1249,
31254 n.3 (Or. C t . App. 2021) (“ The le gisla t ure ha s . . . provide d tha

t disc re tionary pe rm it a pprova ls m

ust a pply c le ar and obje c tive sta

nda rds.” ) (c ita

tion omitte d) (e m pha sis a dde d ). 3. Fina lly , Va lha lla

fa ils to sta

te a pla usible e qua l prote c t ion c la im . An
e qua l prote c tion c l a im arise s whe n sim ila rly situa t e d pa rtie s a re tre ate d diffe re ntly unde r the la

w. Se e N o rdlinge r v . Hahn , 505 U.S. 1, 10 (1992). “ W e uphold
e c onom ic c la ssific ations so long a s the re is a ny re a s ona b ly c onc e iva b le sta te of fa c t s tha t c ould providea

ra tiona l ba sis for the m . . . .” Ame r ic an Soc ’y of J ournalists &

Authors, Inc . v . Bonta , 15 F.4th 954, 965 (9th C ir. 2021) (c ita tion
and inte rna l quota

tion m a rks om itte d). R e quiring a tta c h e d dwe l lings on a

butting lots to sha

re a drive way de c re a s e s the num

be r of drive w ay s inte rse c ting a c urb, the re by inc re a s ing the le ngth a long tha t c urb ava ila

ble for on-stre e t pa

rking. Se e DRP 6.03. Fa c ilita

ting on-stre e t pa

rking is a le gitim at e gove rnm e nt inte re st. Se e Southe rn Pac . Trans. C

o. v . C ity of Los Ange le

s , 922 F.2d 498, 501, 507 (9th C ir. 1990). Thus, deny ing Va l ha lla a drive way pe rm it wa s rationa lly re late d to the le gitim ate gove rnm e nt inte re st of fa c ilita ting on-stre e t

pa rking.

4AFFIRM E D. 1

1 In vie w of our c onc lusion tha t Va lha lla fa ils to pla

usibly a lle g e a c onstitutiona

l viola t ion, we ne e d not re a c h Appe lle e s’ argum e nt tha t the individual de fe nda n ts a re e n t itle d to qua lifie d im m unity
. Se e Sauc ie r v . K

atz , 533 U.S. 194, 201 (2001). 5