Source: https://openjurist.org/246/f3d/1285/elmer-crider-v-the-board-of-county-commissioners-of
Timestamp: 2019-04-22 04:04:37+00:00

Document:
THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF THE COUNTY OF BOULDER; RONALD K. STEWART, PAUL DANISH, JANA MENDEZ, IN THEIR OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS COUNTY COMMISSIONERS; CITY OF LOUISVILLE; THOMAS DAVIDSON, IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS MAYOR; CITY OF LAFAYETTE; CAROLYN MCINTOSH, IN HER OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS MAYOR; CITY OF BROOMFIELD; AND WILLIAM BERENS, IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS MAYOR, DEFENDANTS-APPELLEES.
David Hughes, Assistant County Attorney, Boulder, Colorado (Thomas S. Rice, Senter, Goldfarb & Rice, L.L.C., Denver, Colorado; J. Andrew Nathan and Nina Hammon Jahn, Nathan, Bremmer, Dumm & Myers, P.C., Denver, Colorado; Richard F. Rodriguez, Holme, Roberts & Owen, L.L.P., Denver, Colorado; and H. Lawrence Hoyt, Boulder County Attorney, Boulder, Colorado, with him on the brief), appearing for Appellees.
We review de novo the district court's dismissal pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Sutton v. Utah State Sch. for the Deaf and Blind, 173 F.3d 1226, 1236 (10th Cir. 1999). We must take as true and view in the light most favorable to Paradise Lane Owners all factual allegations contained in their complaint. Id. "A 12(b)(6) motion should not be granted `unless it appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim which would entitle him to relief.'" GFF Corp. v. Associated Wholesale Grocers, Inc., 130 F.3d 1381, 1384 (10th Cir. 1997) (quoting Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 45-46 (1957)).
Paradise Lane Owners argue that, because they were treated differently by the defendants than was StorageTek, the defendants violated their rights to equal protection. The Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment dictates that "No State shall... deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." "This Clause `embodies a general rule that States must treat like cases alike but may treat unlike cases accordingly.'" Tonkovich v. Kan. Bd. of Regents, 159 F.3d 504, 532 (10th Cir. 1998) (quoting Vacco v. Quill, 521 U.S. 793, 799 (1997)). Thus, "[a] violation of equal protection occurs when the government treats someone differently than another who is similarly situated." Jacobs, Visconsi & Jacobs, Co. v. City of Lawrence, 927 F.2d 1111, 1118 (10th Cir. 1991). To state a valid equal protection claim, therefore, Paradise Lane Owners must "allege facts sufficient to establish that [they are] similarly situated" to StorageTek. Tonkovich, 159 F.3d at 532.
Paradise Lane Owners also argue that the defendants violated their rights to substantive due process by arbitrarily and capriciously depriving them of their property interests. To state a cognizable substantive due process claim, Paradise Lane Owners must first allege sufficient facts to show a property or liberty interest warranting due process protection. Lehman v. City of Louisville, 967 F.2d 1474, 1476 (10th Cir. 1992). If they satisfy this requirement, Paradise Lane Owners must allege facts sufficient to show that the challenged governmental action was "arbitrary and capricious." Jacobs, Visconsi & Jacobs, Co. v. City of Lawrence, 927 F.2d 1111, 1119 (10th Cir. 1991).1 The district court dismissed the substantive due process claim because it found that Paradise Lane Owners failed to allege facts sufficient to show arbitrary or capricious conduct on the part of the defendants. We address this issue first.
We have noted that the arbitrary and capricious standard in the context of zoning "does not mean simply erroneous." Norton v. Village of Corrales, 103 F.3d 928, 932 (10th Cir. 1996). Rather, "`the Supreme Court has narrowed the scope of substantive due process protection in the zoning context so that such a claim can survive only if the alleged purpose behind the state action has no conceivable rational relationship to the exercise of the state's traditional police power through zoning.'" Id. (quoting Sylvia Dev. Corp. v. Calvert County, 48 F.3d 810, 829 (4th Cir. 1995)) (emphasis added). "`[T]he `true' purpose of the [policy], (i.e., the actual purpose that may have motivated its proponents, assuming this can be known) is irrelevant for rational basis analysis.'" FM Properties Operating Co. v. City of Austin, 93 F.3d 167, 174 (5th Cir. 1996) (quoting Smithfield Concerned Citizens for Fair Zoning v. Town of Smithfield, 907 F.2d 239, 246 (1st Cir. 1990)). This longstanding principle has recently been reaffirmed by the Supreme Court: "the State need not articulate its reasoning at the moment a particular decision is made." Bd. of Trustees of the Univ. of Ala. v. Garrett, 121 S. Ct. 955, 964 (2001). Rather, under rational basis analysis, we look only to whether a "reasonably conceivable" rational basis exists. Id.; accord Davoll v. Webb, 194 F.3d 1116, 1145 (10th Cir. 1999).
Accordingly, the district court's dismissal of Paradise Lane Owners' claims is AFFIRMED. Appellees' motion for leave to file sur- reply brief is denied.
The Honorable Wesley E. Brown, Senior District Judge for the District of Kansas, sitting by designation.
For example, Paradise Lane Owners argue that they must pay double for their water for the next 30 years.
Paradise Lane Owners argue that the defendants erred when they determined that Paradise Lane has no community of interest with Louisville. They also argue that the defendants erred in focusing on the traffic benefits of imposing the rural preservation designation on Paradise Lane but ignoring the traffic impact of the development of the surrounding land. Even if the defendants did err in these respects, conduct is not arbitrary and capricious simply because it is erroneous. Norton, 103 F.3d at 932.
Because we find that Paradise Lane Owners have failed to allege sufficient facts to satisfy the arbitrary and capricious prong of a substantive due process claim, we need not address whether they were deprived of a property or liberty interest protected by the Due Process Clause.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.