T h e H on or abl e Ja mes S. G wi n , U n i t ed St at es D i s t r i ct J u dg e f or t h e N o rt her n D i s t r i ct of O h i o, s i t t i n g by * d esi gnat i o n. -1-

NOT RECOMMENDED F OR F ULL-TEXT PUBLICATION.

File Na me: 07a0346n.06 Filed: May

17, 2007 Appeal No. 05-2277 UN ITED STA TES C OU RT OF AP P EA LS F OR THE SI XT H C IR CU IT F RA NK AN THON Y B AU SS, P laintif f-App ellant,
v. P LYMOUTH TOWNS HIP A ND MC KENN A ASSOCIATE S, INC., De fend ant s- App e lle e s. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ON AP P EA L F RO M THE UNITED STAT ES DIS TRICT CO UR T F OR

THE EA STER

N D ISTRIC T OF MICHIG AN, SOUTHERN DI VI SION (Case N o. 04-73858)

BEF ORE: SUTTON, COOK, Circ uit J udg es; and, GWI N, District J udg e. * GWI N, District J udg e: Plaintiff-Appellant F rank A nthony Ba uss (“B auss”) ap p eals an order of the district cour

t g rantingsummary

judgme nt to Defe ndants-Appe llees Ply mouth Town s h i p (“Township”) and Mc Ke nn a As so c iate s, Inc . ( “ Mc Ke nn a ” ), the To wn sh ip’ s la nd us e c on su lta

nt. In this a c tio n, B a

us s challeng es t he Township’s master plan ame ndment proce ss on due proc ess g rounds. B auss, a r eal
e state de ve lop e r a

nd land ow ne r, say s the To wn sh ip’ s Pla nn ing Com mis sio n imp a ir e d his pr op e rt y interest whe n it approved a corr ection to the Township’s F uture L and Use Map. In making his claim, Plaintiff-Appellant mistakenly conflates the nature of master planningAppeal No. 05-2277

Ba us s v . P ly mo uth Twp. e t al

.

-2- wi th t ha t o f z o n i n g an d , i n d o i n g s o , m i s un d e r s t an d s th e p r o c e s s d u e t o h i m . B a s e d

on thi s mis un de rs tand ing , B a

us s argue s th a t the To wn sh ip a nd Mc Ke nn a

c on sp ir e d to de pr ive him of his due proc ess rig hts when they failed to g ive him personal notice of a p u b l i c hear ing a nd, further , int e nti on a lly

inf lic te d e mot ion a l di str e ss u po n h im. Ba uss does not have a

cog nizable constituti onal proper ty interest in the Township’s maste r planning proce ss. Fur t h er , u p o n revie w of the r eleva nt Michiga

n law, we conclude that the Township’s Marc h 25, 2004 and Apr il 15, 2004 notices in the Plymouth Observ er withstand Ba

uss’s due proc ess cha lleng e. Abse nt Ba uss’s showing of a constitutional deprivation, we also conclude that B a us s f a ils to de mon str a te that th e To wn sh ip o r M c Ke nn a c on sp ir e d to int e nti on a lly de ny him of any of his c onstitut ional rig hts or intentionally cause d him emotional dist ress. Ac cording ly , we AF F IRM the dis tr ic t c ourt ’s g ra nt o f s umm ary

jud g me nt t o D e fe nd ants -A pp e lle e s. I. Bac kgr ound Mast e r p la n n in g an d zo n in g h av e d if

f e r e n t p ur p o s e s an d e f f e c ts
. Co mm

un it ie s un d erta ke both activities to c ontrol and direc t de velopment and land use within their jurisdiction. Howeve r, only zoning direc tly

controls the use of

proper ty within a community . Master pla nning, while often
e n c o ur a g e d

b y l o c a l l aw , d o e s n o td i r e c t l y a f f e c t l an d o w n e r s ’ r i g h t s t o d e v e l o p o r u s e th e i r l an d
. In contra st to z onin g, master plans pr ovide non-binding aspirational “ roadma ps” for future de ve lop me nt. In this case, the Ply

mouth Township’s Planning Comm i s s i o n , an administrative body appointed by the Township Boa rd, oversaw the community ’s m aster planning proce ss, including the fo rm ulatio n a nd re vis ion of the To wn sh ip’ s ma ste r p lan. Th e Plann in g C ommiss ion a lsoAppeal No. 05-2277

Ba us s v . P ly mo uth Twp. e t al

.

-3- rec ommended ac tion on re-zoni n g ap p l i cations to the Township B oard, which has leg islative
a uth or ity to gra nt a re -zo nin g re qu e st a

nd c ha ng e the c omm

un ity ’s zon inglaws . The P ly mo u th T o w n s h ip B o ar d

h a s a d o p te d

zo n in g la

w s th a t r e g u late th e c o mm u n ity ’s development de nsity

and land use. Relevant to this appea l, the Township’s zoning cla ssifications include R-1 -H (single- family residential) , R-1-S (sing le-fa mily suburban) , and R-2-A(multiplefamily residential) . The z o n i n g cl assification R-1-H (sing le-fa mily residential) allows for the development of

two single -fa

mily homes p er acre; R-1-S (sing le-fa mily suburban) allows for the de ve lop me nt of 0. 8 to thr e e sin g le -f amil y ho me s p e r a c re ; and , R- 2- A ( mul tip le -f amil y re sid e nti a l) allows for the development of six to eig ht multi ple-fa

mily dwelling units per ac re. In 1978, Fr ank Anthony

Ba uss bought a

five-a cre parc el of va cant land at 46410 Ann Arbor Trail, Ply mouth Township, Michi gan (“ An n Arbor T rail Proper ty ”). At the time of B auss’s purcha se, the Township zoned the proper ty R-1-H (sing le-fa

mily residential) . The R-1-H (sing lefamily residential) zoning classific ation permitted Bauss t o develop ten sing le-fa mily residential homes on the par cel. In 1978, the Township’s master plan re commended the planned f uture use of B a us s’ s p ro pe rt

y a s su ita ble fo r l ow -d e ns it y

re sid e nti a l de ve lop me nt ( “ 19 78 Plan” ). Th is aspirational f

uture use, if

approve d, adopted, a

nd enac t ed by

the Township B oard, w ould allow Ba uss to develop 0.8 to three single -fa mily homes per a cre . In 1993, the Township’s Planning Commi ssion undertook a public planningproce ss that
re su lte d in

the To wn sh ip B oa

rd a do pti nga ne w ma ste r pla n (t he “ 19 93 Plan” ). Duri ngthi s p ro c e ss,
a dr a ft inge rr or

re su lte d in

the Ann A rb or

Tr a il Pr op e rt

y be ing mis la

be le d a s R- 2- A ( mul tip le -f amil y residential) on the 1993 Plan’s Futur e L and Use Map. The err or chang ed the Master Plan’s map, butAppeal No. 05-2277

Ba us s v . P ly mo uth Twp. e t al

.

-4- did not ch an g e th e le g a l z o n in g c la s s if ic a ti o ns tatu s o f

B a u s s ’ s p r o p e rty , w h ic hc o n ti nu e d to be zoned as R-1-H ( single -fa mily residential)
. In 1 99 7, B a

us s f ile d a n a pp lic a tio n to re -zo ne his pr op e rt y fr om R- 1- H ( sin g le -f

amil y residential) to R-1-S (single -fa mily suburban) (“1997 A

ppli ca t i o n ”)
. After

public notice and a hear ing, the Planning Commission recommended that th e Township Boa rd g rant B auss’s 1997 Application. The B oard, how ever , tabled B auss’s 1997 Application because Ba uss had not paid the Township for maintena

nce pe rfor

med by the Township on t h e An n Ar b o r Tra il Property . For unknown re asons, B auss did not protest the B oard’ s decision to table the 1997 Applicati o n . On October 31, 2000, the Township closed B auss’s file f or lac k of ac tion. In late 2000, B auss appr oache d the Township about deve loping the la nd and discove red that his 1997 re- zoning application had not been a pproved. B auss then pre sented his 1997 Application at a Septembe r 17, 2003 public hea ringof t he Planning Commi ssion. However , based upon the draf ting e rror in th e 1993 Plan’s F uture L and Use Map, the he aring ’s par ticipants mistakenly

ref err ed to Ba uss’s proper

ty as being zoned a s “hig h-density residential.” After hear ing that the Master Plan arguably supported hig her de nsity development, B auss withdrewhis 1997 Application and, on Se pte mbe r 2 4, 20 03 , f

il e d a n e w a pp lic a tio n r e qu e sti ng

that th e To wn sh ip B oa

rd re -zo ne his pr op e rt

y fr om R- 1- H ( sin g le -f

amil y re sid e nti a l) to R-2-A (multi ple-fa mily residential) (“2003 A

pplication”). Upon re ceiving Ba

uss’s 2003 Application, the Township and Mc Kenna beg an to explore the mislabeling of

the Ann Ar

bor Tra il Property

on the 1993 Future L and Use Map. On Septembe r 29, 2003, the Township’s Direc tor of P ublic Service s wrote to the PlanningCommi ssion’s Chairperson, To wn s h i p ’ s C o mm

u n i t y D e v e l o p m e nt

D i r e c t or , T ow ns hip ’s a tto rn e y , a nd Mc Ke nn a

re qu e sti ngthe irAppeal No. 05-2277

Ba us s v . P ly mo uth Twp. e t al

.

-5- assistance in investigating how the designation of B auss’s prope rty had cha ng ed fr om R-1-H (sing lefamil y residential) in the 1978 Plan to R-2-A (multi-family residential) on the 1993 Plan’s Futur e L and Us e Ma p. Th e Di re c tor

c op ie d B a

us s o n th e le tte r t

hat r e a d, in p e rt ine nt p art : I have ha d an op po rt

un ity to re vie w the re c or d re g ard ing the B a us s re zon ing . T his inc lud e s th e 19 97 [Ap pli c a tio n] and [the 20 03 Ap pli c a tio n] . . . I n e a c h c a se re fe re n ce wa s m ad e t o th e s u b j ec t p ro p erty

b ei n g m as t er

p l an n edfo r r es i d en t i al h i gh density , 6-10 dwe lling units per a cre . After revie wing this matter and looking at a number of maps, it appear s to me that the re may have be e n a dr a ft ing e rr or in re g ard s to the su bje c t pr op e rt

y . B a se d on

my revie w, it appea

rs to me the re sidential high de nsity classificat i o n fo r t he adja cent condominiums was inadver tently car ried to the abutting exis ting subdivision by the dr a ft pe rs on . T his a c tio n w ou ld h ave ina dv e rt e ntl y inc lud e d th e B a

us s p ro pe rt

y int o th i s c l a s s i f

i c a t i o n . T h i s a c t i o nc anb e c l ar i f i e d qu i t e qu i c k l y. Iam asking eac h of y ou to look at any and all historic information y ou may have on the appr oval of the f

uture land use plan and maste r plan to dete rmine if ther e wa s d i s cu s s i o nre gar d i n g m o d i fyi n g t h e s u b j ec tp ro p erty

an d i n cl u d i n g i ti n t o th e h i gh density classification. I fi nd it unrealistic that such a ction would have taken plac e without discussion. Your rec ords should assist us in clarifying this matter. Ty pically , the future land use map w ould desig nate those a rea s that are being dis c us se d f

or c ha ng e . The re wo uld be so me his tor ic do c ume nt wh ic h id e nti fi e s th os e are as that we re be ing c onsidered f or cha ng e at that time. I f in fac t the matter wa s discussed by the Planning Commi s s i o n and wa s re c omm e nd e d f

or a pp ro va l a ft e r d isc us sio n, Ine e d th at ba c k up inf or matio n. I f t

his matter wa s a dra fting err or it should be rec tified. Represe ntatives of the Township a nd McKe nna revisited their files and the historic r ecor d of B auss’s re -zoning a

pplications. They

found no evide nce that the Township intended to re -zone th e Ann Arb or

Tr a il Pr op e rt

y fr om R -1 -H (s ing le -f

amil y re sid e nti a l) to R -2 -A(m ult i- fa mil y residential) . After

revie wing the records a nd the 1993 Futur e L and Use Map, the To wn sh ip conclude d that the map er

roneously labeled B auss’s proper

ty as R-2-A ( multipl e-f

amily residential)
.Appeal No. 05-2277

Ba us s v . P ly mo uth Twp. e t al

.

-6- At the Planning Commission’s public meeting s on October 15, 2003 a

n d D e c e mb e r 10, 2003, De fe nd ants -A

pp e lle e s d isc us se d th e mis la be lin g and

pr op os e d ame nd ing the 19 93 F utu re L and Us e Map. B auss attende d these mee tings. At the D ece mber 10, 2003 mee ting, the PlanningCommi ssion
c on sid e re d a

pr op os e d ame ndme nt t

hat r e a d, in p e rt ine nt p art : The propose d amendment a rises fr om a question of the futur e land use desig nation for a five-a cre site located at 46410 Ann Arbor T rail (the “ subject prope rty ”), which is Tax I D 036-99-0024- 000. The c urre nt Master Plan for the Charter

Township of Ply mouth (the “1993 Plan”) des ignates the subject pr operty for r esidential hig hdensity development, 6 to 10 dwelling units per acr e (“ du/acr e”) . The plan in e ffe ct p ri or to the adoption of the 1993 Plan, the F uture L and Use Plan, Township of Ply mouth (the “1978 Plan”) , desig nated the subje ct prope rty for residential lowdensity development, a

much lower

density of 0.8 to 3 du/acr e. Th e To wn sh ip’ s D ir e c tor of the Di vis ion

of Pub lic Se rv ic e s h a s in dic a te d th a t a chang e to a hig h density

desig nation in the future in the 1978 Plan to the 1993 Plan was a n unintended over sight, by the Ply mout h Charter

Township Planning Commi ssion (the “Commission”). 1993 P lan Act ions Suggest an Oversight. Duringthe formulation of the 1993 Plan, the Commis si on revised

a F e br ua ry 19 92 dr a ft

of the Exist ingL and

Us e Ma p to c or re c t the us e de signatio n o f t he su bje c t pr op e rt

y fr om a high- de ns ity

re sid e nti a l us e to its ac tual use as vaca

nt. Howeve r, no such c orre ction was made to the Fe bruar y 1992 draf t of the F uture L and Use Map. W e b el ieve the c ommissi ons [s ic] failure to chang e the F uture L and Use Map was an oversight and is the basis of our pr oposed amendment to the 1993 Plan. Other P lann ing Pr ocess Ac tions Su pport Oversight. Ba sed on our r eview , as descr ibed in detail below, we find furthe r evide nce that desig nation of the futur e land us e of the su bje c t pr op e rt

y fo r h ig h- de ns ity

re sid e nti a l is inc or

re c t: Baus s Sit e : One of

a Kind. The subjec t property is unique among the prope rties desig nated f or hi g h-density residential use in that it was not used for, de veloped f

or, zoned for, or previously planned f or hig hdensity residential use ; Bauss Site: NotQuali fi ed to be P lann ed f o r High Densi ty. The subject prope rty

does not satisfy the m ajority of t he policy g uidanceAppeal No. 05-2277

Ba us s v . P ly mo uth Twp. e t al

.

-7-

provided in the 1993 Plan for high- density

residential use ; Minutes Do Not Supp ort C hange to High Density. The minutes of the Township B oard a

nd Planning c ommissi on meetings m ake no mention of cha

ng ing the fu t u re l and use designation for the subjec t proper ty at meeting s during the formation and adoption of the 1993 Plan. (Emphase s in the orig inal.) At the close of

the Dec ember

10, 2003 meeting , the P lanning Commi ssion sent the propose d amendment to the Township Boar d for that B oard’ s review . The Planning Commi ssion also tabled Ba uss’s 2003 Application until “no later tha n the reg ular Planning Commi ssion meeting of May 19, 20 04 , to a llo w the To wn sh ip an op po rt un ity to co mpl e te the
. . . ame ndme nt [o f t he F utu re L and Us e Map] consistent with statutory require ments.” Ba

uss objected, but to no ava il. On Dece mber 17, 2003, the Township B oard se nt the p ro p o s ed amendment to adjace nt communities, gove rnmental
e nti tie s, and

uti lity c omp anie s f

or c omm e nt. After rec ei v i n g public comment on the propose d amendment, the PlanningCommi ssion published in notice in the Plymouth Observe r of a public he aringto be held on Apr il 21, 2004. The notice said the PlanningCommi ssion would “consider a proposed amendment to the master plan of the Cha rt e r T ow ns hip of

Ply mouth, Way

ne County .” I f a do pte d, the pr op os e d ame ndme nt w ou ld “cha ng e the f uture land use map desig nation of a 5-ac re site descr ibed as Tax I D 036-99-0024- 0000, from re sidential high de nsity to residential low interme diate density .” On April 21, 2004, the Planning Commi ssion held the public h ea ri n g on the proposed amendment a

nd, at the hea

ring ’s conclusion, approve d it. Ba uss did not attend the April 21, 2004 hear ing. In a May 3, 2004 letter, the Township informed B auss that the Planning Commi ssion hadAppeal No. 05-2277

Ba us s v . P ly mo uth Twp. e t al

.

-8- a pp ro ve d th e pr op os e d ame ndme nt to the F utu re Pla n a nd a dv ise d h im that th e c omm iss ion wo uld
s eta p u b l i c h ea ri n g o nh i s 2 0 0 3 Ap p l i ca t i o nfo r r e- z o n i n g ati t s M ay 1 9 , 2 0 0 4 m ee t i n g. On May 18, 2004, Ba

uss rea sserted his 2003 Application . The Planning Commi ssion considere d Ba

uss’s reque st and, after public notice and a hearingon J uly 21, 2004, rec ommended th a t th e T o w n s h i p B o ar d d e n y B a u s s ’ s 2 0 0 3 Ap p l i c a t i o n . T h e P l an n i n g C o m m i s s i o n b a se d it s
rec ommendation, in part, on consultation with Mc Kenna , as well as substantial oppositi on from ar ea
re sid e nts
. Specifica lly , the Planning Commission recommende d that the Townshi p Boa rd deny B a us s’ s 2 00 3 App lic a tio n f

or the fo llo wi ngre a so ns : 1. The requested rezoning is not consistent with the g oals and policies of the Township Master Plan. 2. The c urre nt R-1-H is more c onsistent with the Future L and Use Plan that [ sic] the reque sted R-2-A. 3. The re quested re zoning could esta bli s h an u ndesirable zoning trend in the To wn sh ip, wh ic h w ou ld u nd e rm ine the or de rl y

tr ans iti on

of de ns iti e s. 4. The c urre nt R-1-H zoning is more a ppropriate to the near

by pattern of land d i v i s i o nan d

h o u s i n g d ev el o p m en tth an th e r equ es t edR -2 -A z o n i n g. On August 17, 2004, the Township Boa rd ac cepte d the Plann in g

Co mm is s io n ’s J uly

21, 2004
rec ommendation and denie d Ba uss’s 2003 Application. On September 3 0 , 2 0 0 4, Ba uss sued the Township and Mc Kenna for violatinghis due proce ss rig hts by

failingto give him actual notice of the Plann i n g Commi ssion’s April 21, 2004 hear ing on whether

to chang e the Township’s 1993 Future L and Use M ap at t ac h ed to the Master Plan. In making his due process claim, Ba uss also said that the cor

rec tion of the draf

ting e rror on the 1993 Plan’s Futur e L and Use Map re sulted in the re- zoning of his prope rty . Ba uss further comp l ai n ed that the Township and McKe nna eng ag ed in a c onspiracy to violate his rights byAppeal No. 05-2277

Ba us s v . P ly mo uth Twp. e t al

.

-9- int e nti on a lly

de nyinghim

sp e c if ic no tic e of

the Ap ri l 21 , 2 00 4 h e ari ng , a nd , f ur the r, int e nti on a lly inflicted emotional distress upon him. The Township a nd McKe nna sepa

rate ly answe red B auss’s
c omp la int and mov e d f or summa ry jud g me nt. O n J u l y 2 7 , 2 0 0 5 , th e d i s tr i c t c o urt g r an t e d D e f e n d an t s ’ m o t i o n s f

o r s u m m ar

y j u d g m e n t
. In its op ini on , the dis tr ic t c ourt fi rs t c on sid e re d wh e the r B a us s p os se sse d a

pr ote c te d p ro pe rt

y int e re st in any “zoning c lassification” othe r t han the classification that the property had, i.e., R-1- H (sing lefa mil y re sid e nti a l)
. Th e c ourt fo un d th a t B a us s d id n ot p os se ss s uc h a pr ote c te d p ro pe rt

y int e re st,
no tin g that “ Plain ti ff cla ims to h ave a pr op e rt y int e re st i n a

zon ingthat ne ve r e xiste d. Th e on ly proper ty interest Plaintiff has is a

n interest in the proper

ty as he purcha sed it, R-1- H. This zoni ng
never changed. There fore , Plaintiff does not have the protec table prope rty interest he c laims.” Having made this finding , the district c ourt declined to a ddress the issue of whether the Township’s proce dure a ffor ded B auss suffic ient notice. The district cour

t then found that B auss’s conspira cy claim fa i l ed in the absenc e of a ny vio latio n o f h is c on sti tut ion a l r ig hts
. F ina lly , th e dis tr ic t c ourt de nie d B a us s’ s c la im of int e nti on a l inf lic tio n of e mot ion a l di str e ss beca use Ba uss f ailed to showsufficie nt fac ts to establish that the Township or McKe nna eng ag ed in a ny “ e xtre me and

outr a g e ou s c on du c t” in t he ir c on sid e ratio n o f h is r e -zo nin g a pp lic a tio ns . On Au g us t 24 , 2 00 5, B a

us s ti me ly -f

ile d h is n oti c e of

a pp e a l. II. Legal Stand ard On a p p e a l, Pl a inti f

f

- Ap p e ll an t B a

u s s c h a ll e n g e s th e d is tr ic t c o urt’ s g r an t o f s ummary judgme nt in f

avor of Def

endants-A

ppellees, the Township and McK enna. “ We give fre sh reviewAppeal No. 05-2277

Ba us s v . P ly mo uth Twp. e t al

.

-10- to a district court’s summar y -judg ment decision, applying the s am e fa miliar standard that district courts apply .” Flas k

am p v . D e arbo rn Pu b. Sc hs

. , 385 F.3d 935, 940 ( 6th Cir. 2004). To establish a due proce ss violation in a Section 1983 claim, “plaintiffs must establish three
e le me nts : ( 1) tha

t the y have a lif

e , li be rt y , o r p ro pe rt

y int e re st p ro te c te d b y

the Du e Pr oc e ss C la

us e of the F ourtee nth Amendment . . ., (2) that they wer e deprive d of this protecte d interest within the meaningof the Due Process Cl ause, and (3) that the s tate did not aff ord them ade quate pr ocedur al rig hts prior to depriving them of their pr otected inter est.” Hahn v. Star Bank , 1 90 F .3 d 7 08 , 7 16 (6 th Cir. 1999), cert. de nied , 529 U.S. 1020 (2000) (c itation omit ted). To establish a “ conspirac y ” under a Section 1983 claim, a plaintiff must first demonstrate a constitutional deprivation. See, e .g. , Hooks v . Hooks , 771 F.2d 935, 943- 44 (6th Cir. 1985). Se e als o Pillette v. De troit Poli ce D ep’t , 661 F. Supp. 1145, 1148 (E.D. Mic h. 1987). To c la im inte n ti o n a l i n f

li c ti o no f e mo ti o n a l d is tr e s s , a

p la inti f f mu s t s h o w th e d e f

e n dant eng ag ed in “ e xtr e me an d o u tr a g e o u s c o n d

u c t” to “ inte n ti o n a ll y

o r r e c k le s s ly” c a

u s e h im s e v e re emotional distress. See, e .g. , Ledsinger v. Burme ister , 318 N.W.2d 558, 561 (Mich. Ct. App. 1982). III . A nal ys is F or the re a so ns dis c us se d b e low , w e a ff ir m th e dis tr ic t c ourt ’s fi nd ingthat D e fe nd ants
Appellee s did not deprive B auss of his Four teenth Am en d ment due proc ess rig hts, conspire to do
so , o r i nte nti on a lly

inf lic t e mot ion a l di str e ss u

po n h im. A. Baus s D id N otP os se ss a P r ope r tyInt e r e stin t he R- 2- A ( M ult iple -F am ilyRe side nt ial ) R e -z oni ng We h old that B a us s h a s f a ile d to e sta

bli shthe vio latio n o f a

ny du e pr oc e ss r ig ht.Appeal No. 05-2277

Ba us s v . P ly mo uth Twp. e t al

.

-11- To establish a violation of due pr ocess, a plaintiff must first establish the exis tence of a constitutionally -protec ted prope rty or liberty interest. Richardson v. Twp. of Brady , 218 F.3d 508, 516-17 (6th Cir. 2000). I n Bo ar d o f R e ge nts v . R oth , 408 U.S. 564 (1972), the S upreme Court de sc ri be d the kin ds of

int e re sts pr ote c te d b y

the F ourt e e nth

Am e ndme nt: “ to h ave a

pr op e rt y int e re st i n a b en efit, a person cle arly must have more tha

n an abstra ct nee d or desire for it. He must have
mor e tha n a un ilate ra l e xpe c tatio n o f it. He mus t, ins te a d, have a le g iti mate c la im o f e nti tle me nt t o it.” Id. a t 57 7. Th e Co urt e xpla ine d th a t th e Con sti tut ion do e s n ot c re a te pr op e rt

y int e re sts , b ut, rathe r, these inter ests arise f rom “e x isting rules or under standing s that stem from an indepe ndent
source such as state law – rule s or under standing s that secur e ce rtain bene fits and s upport claims of entitlement to those benef its.” Id. A par ty cannot possess a

proper ty interest in the potential rec eipt of a be nefit whe n the state’s decision to awa

rd or withhold the bene fit is wholly discretionar

y . See, e .g. , Richardson , 218 F.3d at 517. I f an of

fi ci al has unconstrained discr etion to deny the bene fit, a prospe ctive re cipient ca n establish no more than a

n unprotec ted “unilater al expectation” of it. Ro th , 408 U.S. at 577. Thus, befor e B auss ca

n establish a viol ation of due proce ss, he mus t demonstrate that he had a p ro p erty i n t er es t i n th e us e of th e An n Ar b o r Tr ai l P ro p erty as a si t e f o r m u l t i p l e- fa m i l y

h o u s i n g. To do this, B auss must show that the Township Boa rd did not have the discretion to deny Ba uss’s reque st to re-zone his land. See G.M. Eng’rs and Assoc., Inc. v . W . Bloomfield Twp. , 922 F.2d 328, 33 1 ( 6th Cir . 1 99 0) . I f the To wn sh ip B oa rd ha d th e dis c re tio n to de ny B a us s’ s r e -zo nin g re qu e st, then B auss would not have a “leg itimate claim of entit lement” or a “justifiable e x pectation” in the Boa rd’s a pproval o f h i s re- zoning re quest. Id. (q u o t i n g Ro th , 408 U.S. at 577). B auss, there fore ,Appeal No. 05-2277

Ba us s v . P ly mo uth Twp. e t al

.

I n t hi s an al y s i s of

rel eva nt M i chi gan l aw, we not e t hat , ef f ect i ve A pri l 10, 200 6, t he s t at e l egi s l at ur e r epeal ed 1 the sta tuto ry sec tio n s re fer re d to in t h is O p inio n . See P ub. A ct s 2 00 6, N o. 1 10
. H owever , t he M i chi gan s t at ut es r ef er r ed t o i n t hi s O pi ni on repr es ent t hos e t hat b ound t he act i ons o f t he part i es at t he t i me P l ai nt i f f

- A pp el l ant broug ht t hi s l aw suit
. A s such , w e p ro p erly rely o n the text o f t he rep ea l ed st atutes f

o r o ur c urre nt ana l ysi s. W e furth e r n o te tha t o u r re lian c e o n the se se c tio n s o f t h e M ic h iga n c o d e d iff e rs fro m the d istric t co u rt’s a n a lysis tha t c o n sid e re d M ic h iga n ’s M u n ic ip a l P la n n ing C o d e , i .e ., M I CH . C O M PL . L AW S S E RV . § 1 25
. 36 , t o c om e t o t h e s a me co rr ect co ncl usi o n t hat t he T o wnshi p B o ard had f ul l dis cret i o n t o rej ect B auss ’ s 2 0 0 3 ap p l i cat i o n f o r r e- zo ni ng. -12- would have no pr operty

rig ht. On the other ha

nd, if state l aw circumscr ibed t he Township B oard’ s dis c re tio n to su c h a

n e xtent th a t a

pp ro va l of

the pa rt ic ula r use was mand a tor

y , th e n a pr op e rt y interest could e x ist. Id. Un de r M ic hig an’ s to wn sh ip zo nin g laws , a tow ns hip bo ard ha s nea r co mpl e te dis c re tio n to deny re- zoning applications. Michig an’s Township ZoningAct provide d that a t o wnship board may 1 provide by

ordinanc e for the establishm ent of zoning districts. M I CH . C OMP . L A WS S ERV . § 125.271. The Township Zoning Act provided that a townshi p board c an conside r and a pprove a mending the zoning code to allow for non- confor ming use of the land. See, e .g. , id. at §§ 125
. 2 8 6 , 1 25.286h, 1 2 5
. 2 8 6 i. A t ownship board pr operly considers a

nd g rants re -zoning re quests to allow nonc on fo rm ingus e s if

su c h a g ra nt w ou ld m e e t th e purp os e of the To wn sh ip Z on ingAc t, i .e ., “ pr omo te the public hea lth, safety , morals and g ener al welf are .” Id. a t § 125.273. Given the languag e and intent of the re levant Mi chig an statutes, we conclude that the law g ave the Towns h i p Bo ard broad discre tion to reject B auss’s 2003 Application. Bec ause the To wn sh ip B oa

rd ha d b ro a d d isc re tio n, B a

us s po sse sse d ne ith e r a le g iti mate c la im o f e nti tle me nt t o his requeste d re- zoning, nor a justifiable expectation that the B oard w ould gr ant his reque sted rezon ing . B a

us s, the re fo re , p os se sse d n o p ro pe rt y int e re st that su

pp or ts h is d ue pr oc e ss c la im.Appeal No. 05-2277

Ba us s v . P ly mo uth Twp. e t al

.

-13- The Supreme Court has recog nized that proper ty interests may

be cr eate d in some situations de sp ite the a

bs e nc e of e xplic it c on tr a c tua l or

le g a l pr ov isi on s e stab li sh ing a c la im o f e nti tle me nt. See Perry v. Sindermann , 408 U.S. 593, 601-02 (1972). F or example, under tr aditional principles of contra ct law, “ expli cit contra ctual provisions may be suppl emented by other a g ree ments impli ed fr o m t h e p romisor’s words or conduct in lig ht of the surroundingcirc umstances.” Id. a t 6 02 (quotation omitted). There fore , Ba uss could establish a prote cted pr operty interest if he could show that the Planning Commi ssion or the Township Boa rd eng ag ed in w ords or c onduct that cr eate d an implicit, but nonetheless leg ally -binding , obligation to gra nt his re-zoning a

pplication. B a us s h a s n ot a dd

uc e d s uc h f

a c ts. Th e re c or d c on ta ins no e vid e nc e , f or e xamp le , th a t w ou ld support a cla im that Defe ndants-Appe llees cr eate d an i m plied contra ct. On the c ontrary , and as noted by the district court, the r ecor d contains proof t h at t h e Township properly considere d and ultimately

reje cted B auss’s 2003 Application as “not cons istent with the goa ls as policies of the Towns h ip M a s te r

Pl an . ” B a

u s s a c ti v e ly

p arti c ip a te d

in th e T o w n s h ip ’ s c o n s id e r a ti o no f h is 2 003 Ap pli c a tio n. As a

re su lt, Pla int if

f- Ap pe lla nt c ann ot sh ow that he po sse sse d a c og niza ble pr op e rt

y int e re st b a se d o n a

ny imp lie d a g re e me nt b y

De fe nd ants -A

pp e lle e s to g ra

nt h is r e -zo nin g re qu e st. B. T he Towns hip P r ov ide d Bau ss W it h Ad e quat e No ti c e of t he Apr il 2 1, 20 04 He ar ing In his complaint and on appe al, B auss say s that Defe ndants-Appe llees vi o la te d h is p r o c e dural due proc ess rig hts by

failingto give h i m “a d equate notice of the April 21, 2004 Planning Commi ssion meeting in whic h the Proposed Master Plan Amendment was enac ted which r e-zoned [B a us s’ s] pr op e rt

y .” B a us s c ann ot c omp la in o f a pr oc e dura l ha

rm before he de mon str a te s a colora ble intere st in his request for re- zoning of the Ann Arbor Trail Property as R-2-A (multiple-Appeal No. 05-2277

Ba us s v . P ly mo uth Twp. e t al

.

-14- family housing)
. See R ichardson , 218 F.3d at 516-17. As discussed above , Ba

uss does not make su ch a showing . The Township B oard ha d the discretion to d en y Ba uss’s re- zoning application, which it lega lly did on Aug ust 17, 2004 after providing Ba

uss with adequate notice and a n opportunity

to be hea rd. Fur ther, no action undertake n by the Township B oard or

Planning Commission “re-zoned” Ba uss’s proper

ty , either a s a matter of fac t or law. The Ann Arbor Trail Property enjoy ed R-1-H (sing le-fa mily residential) zoning at the tim e B a us s p ur c ha se d it

in 1 97 8 a nd c on tin ue d to e njo y

that zon ingc la ssi fi c a

tio n w he n th e To wn sh ip Boa rd rejected Ba

uss’s 2003 Application. That the 1993 F uture L and Use Map mislabeled B auss’s proper ty has no importance on the prope rty ’s zoning cla ssification. Thus, Def endants-A

ppellees
un de rt oo k n o a c ts that de pr ive d Pl a int if f- Ap pe lla nt o f h is c on sti tut ion a l r ig hts
. Ev e n if B a us s h a d b e e n a

ble to sh ow a pr op e rt

y int e re st e nti tle d to pr ote c tio n, his c la im f a ils to s h o w t h e Township denied him sufficient opportunity to protect his claimed inter est. A brief analy sis of releva

nt Michiga

n law supports this constituti onal finding
. Ba uss seems to claim that he should have re ceive d persona l notice of the he arin g o n t he ame ndment to the Township’s Master Plan. But De fenda

nts-Appellee s did not viol ate B auss’s due pr ocess r ights whe n they did not give pe rs on a l no tic e of

the Plann ing Commis sio n’ s Ap ri l 21 , 20 04 he ari ng . Th e y fo llo we d r e le va

nt s tate law by publicizi ng notice of the hear ing in the Ma rch 25, 2004 a

nd April 1 5 , 2 004 editions of the Pl y mo uth Ob se rv e r and

the no tic e pr ov ide d b y

that st a te law w a s su ff

ic ie nt. Cha pte r 1 25 of

the Mic hig an C o m

p i l e d L aws pr ov ide s f

or the c re a tio n, or g anizatio n, po we rs ,Appeal No. 05-2277

Ba us s v . P ly mo uth Twp. e t al

.

T h e M ic h iga n le g islatu re ’s re p e a l o f the sta te ’s T o w n sh ip Z o n ing A c t o n A p ril 2 0 0 6 d id no t effe c t t h e sta te ’s 2 T o w n sh ip P la n n ing p ro v isio n s tha t we d isc u ss in this se c tio n . See M I CH . C O M PL . L AW S S E RV . §§ 125. 321- 125. 333. -15- and dutie s of

towns hip pla

nn ingc omm iss ion s. M I CH . C OMP . L A WS S ERV . § 2 12 5. 32 4. A t ow ns hip planning commission may cre ate a master plan “that shall addre ss land use issues and may projec t 20 y ear s or more into the futur e. T h e plan sha ll include maps, plats, char ts and descr iptive, explanatory and other related matter . . ..” Id. at § 125.327. A t ownship planning commission may also amend t h e m as t er plan after seekingthe input of the township’s boar d and other interested entities. Id. at § 125.329. B e fo re a do pti ng any pr op os e d ame ndme nt, a pla nn ingc omm iss ion

mus t provide notice and hold a public hea ring
. Id. Michig an law pr ovides for notice of a public he aring on any proposed a

mendment hea

ringby publication in a local ne wspape r: [t ]he township planning commission s h al l publish noti ce of the hea ring twice in a newspa per of g ener al circ ulation in the township. The first publication shall be not more than 30 da

y s or less than 20 day s b ef o re t h e date of

the hea ring . The sec ond p u b l i ca t i o ns h al l b e n o tm o re th an 8 d ay s b ef o re th e d at e o f t h e h ea ri n g. Id. at § 125.328(1). After the hear ing, the township planning commission may approve the proposed amendment “ by

majority vote of its membership.” Id. at § 125.328(2). Her e, the Ply

mouth Town s h ip Pl a

nn ingCommi ssion sought to amend the 1993 Plan’s Future L and Use Map to corr ect a d ra ft ing e rror that mislabeled the Ann A rbor Tr ail Property ’s zoning
c la ssi fi c a tio n a s R- 2- A (m ult ipl e -f amil y re sid e nti a l) . A ft e r d isc us sin g the mis la be lin g a t it s p ub lic meeting s on October

15, 2003 and De cembe r 10, 2003, the Planning Commi ssion sent a proposed amendment to the Township Boar d for its revie w. The B oard se nt the proposed amendment to other int e re ste d e nti tie s, inc lud inga dja c e nt c omm un iti e s, g ov e rnme nta l e nti tie s, and uti lity c omp anie s.Appeal No. 05-2277

Ba us s v . P ly mo uth Twp. e t al

.

-16- After rec eiving public comment on the proposed a mendment, the Planning Commi ssion publiciz ed notice of the April 21, 2004 public hea ring in the Marc h 25, 2004 and Apr il 15, 2004 editions of the Plymouth Observ er , the community ’s g ener al intere st newspaper, in compliance with Section 125.328(1) of

the Michig an l aw s . Af ter the he aring , the Planning Commission approved the pr op os e d ame ndme nt a

nd the To wn sh ip a dv ise d B a us s o f t he c omm iss ion ’s a

pp ro va l. Contrary to Ba uss’s complaint, the Michig an statute re quires only that the Township’s Planning Commission provide notice of amendment hea ring s by publication. The re cord shows that th e P l an n i n g C o m m i s s i o na dh e r e d t o th e r e qu i r e m e n t s o f M i c h i g an ’ s l aw . C o n s e qu e n t l y, De fe n d an t s -A p p el l ee s p ro v i d edBau s s wi thl ega l l y -s u ff i ci en tn o t i ce o f th e Ap ri l 2 1 , 2 0 0 4 h ea ri n g. Courts have e x amined cla ims that z oning me asure s that provi de for publication in a local
ne ws pa pe r a re inv a lid and tha t du e pr oc e ss req ui res a c tua l no tic e . E xami nin g the se argume nts , courts have held this conten t i o n fa ils and state zoning statutes nee d not provide for actua l notice. See, e .g. , W

e lls v . V ill. o f Lib e rty v ill e , 505 N.E.2d 740 (I ll. App. 1987) (noti ng that “[i] t has bee n rep e a te d ly

h e ld b y I ll in o is c o urts th a t t

h e s tatuto r

y p r o v is io n s f

o r n o ti c e b y p u b li c a ti o no f

zo n ing ordinanc e ame ndment proce eding s satisfy the require ments of proce dural due proce ss and that due pr oc e ss d oe s n ot r e qu ir e pe rs on a l noti c e of su c h pro c e e din g s to a dja c e nt p ro pe rt y ow ne rs ” ); Lawt on
v . Ci ty of A us tin , 404 S.W .2d 648 (Tex. Civ. App. 1966) (holding that a state’s statutory notice provisions “. . . are valid for tw o re asons[ :] . . . first . . . the ena ctment and a mendment of zoning laws is l e g isl a tiv e in c ha

ra c te r a nd du e pr oc e ss o f l aw d oe s n ot r e qu ir e no tic e of su c h p ro c e e din g s[;]

. . . s e c on d .
. . the no tic e pr ov isi on s o f the se statut e s [by pu bli c a tio n] are c on sti tut ion a lly a de qu a te even if notice is require d.”). See also Nardi v. City of Providence , 153 A.2d 136 (R.I . S. Ct . 1959).Appeal No. 05-2277

Ba us s v . P ly mo uth Twp. e t al

.

-17- Thus, beca

use B auss lacke d a prote cted pr operty interest in the re -zoning of the Ann Arbor Trail Proper

ty and bec ause the Township provided him with sufficient notice of the Apr il 21, 2004 he ari ngto a

me nd the 19 93 F utu

re L and Us e Ma p, Pla int if f- Ap pe lla nt’ s d ue pr oc e ss c la ims fa il. C. B a u s s ’s Re mai n i n g Cl a i ms Def endants-A

ppellees did not conspire to deprive Plaintiff-A ppellant of his constitutional ri g hts . T he dis tr ic t c ourt

c or re c tly no te s th a t, t o b ri nga c on sp ir a c y c la im as a g a ins t th e To wn sh ip and McKenna, B auss must first establish that he has suff ere d a constitutional deprivation. Se e als o Hooks , 7 71 F .2 d at 94 3- 44 ; Pi lle tte , 661 F. Supp. at 1148. As discussed above , Ba uss fails this proof beca use he doe s not demonstrate that he possessed a protec ted prope rty

interest in the Township’s master plan or its zoning decisions. Fur ther, the Township provided Bauss with leg ally sufficie nt notice of the Planning Commission’s April 21, 2004 he aring . Thus, Ba uss cannot show that he was deprive d of any constitutional rig ht, much l ess t hat Defenda nts-Appellee s conspired to so de prive him . Co ns e qu e ntl y , Pl a int if f- Ap pe lla nt’ s c on sp ir a c y

c la im f a ils
. F ina lly , Pl a int if

f- Ap pe lla nt d oe s n ot s ho w f

a c ts s uf fi c ie nt to ra ise mate ri a l fa c tua l is su e s in
su pp or t of his c la im of

int e nti on a l in fl ic tio n o f e mot ion a l di str e ss. To state su c h a c la im, B a us s mu st de mon str a te that D e fe nd ants -A pp e lle e s e ng a g e d in “ex tre me and outr a g e ou s c on du c t” to “intentionally

or re cklessly” ca

use him sever e emotional distress. See, e .g. , Ledsinger , 318 N.W.2d at 561. The district c ourt corr ectly notes that Ba

uss’s complaint fails to show sufficie nt fac ts to make a mater ial showing of “e x treme a nd outrag eous conduc t” on the par t of t he Township or McKenna
. In his atte mpt

to b ri ngthi s c la im, B a

us s a sse rt s th a t D e fe nd ants -A pp e lle e s c on sp ir e d to de ny him of his pr op e rt

y ri g hts . H ow e ve r, a s d isc us se d a bo ve , B a us s d id n ot p os se ss a

pr ote c te d p ro pe rt

yAppeal No. 05-2277

Ba us s v . P ly mo uth Twp. e t al

.

-18- interest and the Township provided him with leg ally sufficie nt notice of the PlanningCommi ssion’s April 21, 2004 hea

ring . Absent any

constit u t i o n al depr ivation, Ba uss cannot esta

blish a case of
c on sp ir a c y

a g a ins t De fe nd ants -A

pp e lle e s. B e c a

us e no c on sp ir a c y to vio late his c on sti tut ion a l r ig hts exis ted, B auss’s cla im that Defe ndants- A p p e ll e e s in

te nti o n a ll y

or re cklessly

acte d with “extreme and
outr a g e ou s c on du c t” tow ard him fa ils
. IV. Conclusion For these re asons, we AF F IRM
.