MICH. ENVIRON. RESOURCES ASSOC. v. Macomb County, Civ. A. No. 84CV2520DT.

• Decision Date: 18 September 1987
• Docket Number: Civ. A. No. 84CV2520DT.
• Citation: 669 F. Supp. 158
• Parties: MICHIGAN ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES ASSOCIATES, INC., a Michigan corporation, Plaintiff, v. COUNTY OF MACOMB, et al., Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Western District of Michigan

669 F. Supp. 158

MICHIGAN ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES ASSOCIATES, INC., a Michigan corporation, Plaintiff, v. COUNTY OF MACOMB, et al., Defendants.

Civ. A. No. 84CV2520DT.

United States District Court, E.D. Michigan, S.D.

September 18, 1987.

Delmer C. Gowing, III and James A. Tuck, Bloomfield Hills, Mich., for plaintiff.

Robert S. Cubbin, Frank E. Brochert, Detroit, Mich., for defendants.

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

PHILIP PRATT, Chief Judge.

Before the court is defendant County of Macomb's motion for summary judgment. Fed.R.Civ.P. 56. This motion presents the issue of whether the plaintiff had a constitutionally protected property interest by virtue of its application for a landfill site. For the reasons stated herein, the court holds that it did not. Therefore, the court grants the defendant's motion and orders an entry of a judgment of dismissal in this matter.

I.

Plaintiff Michigan Environmental Resources Associates, Inc. (MERA) brings this action to rectify what it perceived as an unconstitutional denial of its application to construct a sanitary landfill site in Macomb County. The basis of plaintiff's suit is that the County's rejection of its landfill site was "arbitrary" and "capricious" decision-making by the Macomb County Board of Commissioners. It is alleged that the defendants did not follow the procedures established by the state legislature in the Solid Waste Management Act, M.S.A. 13.29(1) et seq., M.C.L. 299.401 et seq. As a result of these alleged violations, MERA contends that its due process rights under the U.S. Constitution, the Michigan Constitution and 42 U.S.C. § 1983 have been violated.

The Michigan legislature enacted the Solid Waste Management Act in 1978, which required Michigan counties to prepare and submit a solid waste management plan to the state Department of National Resources (DNR). The Macomb County plan, entitled Macomb County Solid Waste Management Plan (MCSWMP or the Plan), sets forth procedures for reviewing and approving proposed sanitary landfill sites.

In August 1981, MERA contacted the Macomb County Board of Commissioners requesting approval of property it had purchased as a county landfill site.¹ The site was evaluated by the procedures set forth in the MCSWMP. The Technical Review Committee (TRC) first evaluated and rated the proposed site on a scale of 0 to 450 possible points. Plaintiff's site received a score of 348 points from the TRC. Plaintiff's proposal was then forwarded to the Solid Waste Planning Committee (Committee). The Committee voted to recommend construction of the landfill and passed its recommendation on to the Macomb County Board of Commissioners. As a final step in the review process, the Board of Commissioners has the authority to either "approve or reject the site" under the Plan. In making this decision, this court has held that the Board of Commissioners "is vested with substantial discretion." Memorandum Opinion and Order at 11 (July 30, 1986). On February 22, 1984, the Board of Commissioners voted unanimously to reject plaintiff's Plan and not forward it to the DNR for further consideration, i.e., a construction permit application.

Several months later the Board of Commissioners approved a proposed site by another firm and forwarded its approval to the DNR. The successful firm, A & A Landfill, Inc., was rated 61 points higher than MERA by the TRC evaluation and review procedure. After MERA's proposed site was rejected and the A & A Landfill site approved, MERA filed this lawsuit seeking $4.5 million in actual damages and $1 million in punitive damages. MERA bases its damage claim on the allegation that it had been negotiating with a third party for the sale of the proposed landfill site, and because MERA's site was not approved, the third party refused to pay for the land.

II.

A court may enter summary judgment on a claim if the record shows that "there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law." Fed.R. Civ.P. 56(c). However, the trial court ought proceed with caution in granting summary judgment, and may deny summary judgment where there is reason to believe that the better course would be to proceed to a full trial. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, 477 U.S. 242, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 2514, 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986). The authority of the court to take a case away from the jury is limited, with all doubts to be resolved in the non-movant's favor. Id. 106 S.Ct. at 2513. Applying these standards, the court grants the defendant's motion because no genuine issue of material fact exists, and the County is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

III.

Section 1983 of Title 42 of the United States Code is a jurisdictional statute that allows a cause of action for the "deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws" of the United States by any person acting "under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory." To state a claim under § 1983, a plaintiff must show two things: 1) that the defendant acted under color of state law, and 2) that the defendant deprived the plaintiff of a federal right, either statutory or constitutional. Gomez v. Toledo, 446 U.S. 635, 100 S.Ct. 1920, 64 L.Ed.2d 572 (1980); Bacon v. Patera, 772 F.2d 259 (6th Cir.1985). The defendant here, the County of Macomb, does not deny that its conduct was under color of state law. The question here is whether the defendant has deprived the plaintiff of a federally protected right.

MERA's suit is based on a violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. The Due Process Clause may be said to protect persons in two separate ways. First, it provides "that certain substantial rights— life, liberty and property—cannot be deprived except pursuant to constitutionally adequate procedures." Loudermill v. Cleveland Board of Ed., 470 U.S. 532, 105 S.Ct. 1487, 1493, 84 L.Ed.2d 494 (1985). This protection is termed procedural due process. Secondly, "there are certain types of governmental acts that violated the Due Process Clause regardless of the procedures used to implement them. When the government engages in such conduct, there is a remedy under § 1983." Nishiyama v. Dickson County Tennessee, 814 F.2d 277, 281 (6th Cir.1987). Accord Wilson v. Beebe, 770 F.2d 578 (6th Cir.1985). This second protection is termed substantive due process.

In order to extend the protection of the Due Process Clause to any particular plaintiff, however, the court must determine whether the liberty or property interest at issue is constitutionally protected. This is true whether the plaintiff alleges violation of procedural due process, Board of Regents v. Roth, 408 U.S. 564, 569-70, 92 S.Ct. 2701, 2705, 33 L.Ed.2d 548 (1972); Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319, 332, 96 S.Ct. 893, 901, 47 L.Ed.2d 18 (1975); Riverview Investments v. Ottawa Community Improvement Corp., 769 F.2d 324, 327 (6th Cir.), rehearing denied and opinion supplemented, 774 F.2d 162 (6th Cir.1985), or substantive due process. Stevens v. Hunt, 646 F.2d 1168, 1169-70 (6th Cir.1981). See also Carolan v. City of Kansas City, Mo., 813 F.2d 178, 181 (8th Cir.1987). Therefore, if application for the landfill did not create a constitutionally protected property interest, MERA may not claim the protections of the Due Process Clause.

A constitutionally protected property interest arises if state or federal law creates an "entitlement." The seminal case in this regard is Board of Regents v. Roth, 408 U.S. 564, 92 S.Ct. 2701, 33 L.Ed.2d 548 (1972). Roth teaches that:

to have a property interest in a benefit, a person clearly must have more than an abstract need or desire for it. He must have more than a unilateral expectation of it. He must, instead, have a legitimate claim of entitlement to it. It is a purpose of the ancient institution of property to protect those claims upon which people rely in their daily lives, reliance that must not be arbitrarily undermined.

Id. at 577, 92 S.Ct. at 2709. In order to determine whether an entitlement exists, the Supreme Court has directed that one should look to state law:

Property interests, of course, are not created by the Constitution. Rather, they are created and their dimensions are defined by existing rules or understandings that stem from an independent source such as state law—rules or understandings that secure certain benefits and that support claims of entitlement to those benefits.

Id.

An entitlement is created where state law requires or mandates that a benefit be awarded. If the award of the benefit is discretionary, however, courts have held that constitutionally protected rights do not exist. In Riverview Investments, supra, a Sixth Circuit panel held that an application for industrial revenue bonds did not create a protected property interest. The statutory authority for issuing the bonds states that an "issuer may issue bonds for the purpose of providing money to acquire ... one or more projects ..." Ohio Rev.Code Ann. § 165.03(A) (Page 1984). The court held that this language "makes issuing the bonds discretionary." 769 F.2d at 326. Finding that no entitlement existed, the court affirmed the district court's grant of the defendant's motion for summary judgment.

The plaintiffs rely primarily on the oftcited case of Three Rivers Cablevision v. City of Pittsburgh, 502 F.Supp. 1118 (W.D. Pa.1980). In that case, the City of Pittsburgh solicited bids for a cable television system for the city. The city council passed an ordinance providing for contract terms and specifications to be met. City officials informed interested parties that no amendments to their proposals would be allowed. The city also required that contracts be awarded to the "lowest responsible bidder." All bids were initially rejected by the city, and the four companies resubmitted their bids. The city then allegedly allowed one of ...