42 USC § 1983 action arising from a zoning & licensing approval process; Whether a City official was entitled to qualified immunity; Claims under the Due Process Clause; “Legitimate claim of entitlement”; Takings claim; Governmental delay; Equal protection claim; Class-of-one theory; Use of the “cat’s paw” theory to establish municipal liability; Monell v Department of Soc Servs

[This appeal was from the ED-MI.] The court held that because defendant-City of Pontiac’s officials retained the discretion whether to allow medical marijuana facilities to operate at plaintiff-Rubicon’s proposed development site, neither Rubicon nor its tenants had any cognizable property interest in obtaining benefits from the City and could not raise a due process claim. Plaintiffs’ takings claim failed because there was no extraordinary delay, and the equal protection claim failed due to the lack of evidence of intentional discrimination. Finally, the court declined to “extend the cat’s paw theory into the land of Monell.” Rubicon is a property developer who purchased land in Pontiac, intending to have it rezoned to develop shops, including two medical marijuana facilities. The project fell apart, and plaintiffs sued the City and the then-interim city clerk, defendant-Doyle, under § 1983. The district court granted defendants summary judgment on all claims. On appeal, the court first rejected Rubicon’s due process claim against Doyle, holding that “neither Rubicon nor its potential tenants possessed a ‘legitimate claim of entitlement’” to use the property for marijuana cultivation or processing where the officials retained discretion whether to permit medical marijuana facilities to operate at the proposed site. Next, assuming, but not deciding, that Rubicon had a protected property interest for a takings claim, it noted that “for governmental delay to amount to a taking, the lag must be ‘extraordinary’” and it held that the delay here was not. Doyle’s actions “at most delayed the project a couple of months” and there was no evidence of “bad faith.” Rubicon’s class-of-one theory equal protection claim against Doyle also failed. As to the claims against the City, the court held that plaintiffs failed to connect any alleged employee constitutional violation to a “municipal policy or custom.” A First Amendment retaliation claim brought by two of the plaintiffs using the “cat’s paw” theory also failed. “The concept of a municipality, through no fault of its own, being held liable for the single act of its agents sounds a lot like respondeat superior, which Monell expressly forecloses.” Affirmed.