42 USC § 1983; Equal protection; Class-of-one claim; Rockwood Auto Parts, Inc v Monroe Cnty; Disparate treatment; No-conceivable-reason theory; Animus theory; Procedural & substantive due process violation claims; Zinermon v Burch; Protected property interest; Building permits; First Amendment retaliation; Constitutionally protected speech element; Limitations on emailing township board members; Narrowly tailored restriction; Ward v Rock Against Racism

[This appeal was from the ED-MI.] Holding that defendant-Lyon Township did not violate plaintiff-GSL’s equal-protection, due process, or First Amendment free speech rights, the court affirmed summary judgment for defendants. GSL agreed to build a manufacturing facility for a company on a parcel of land in the Township. After it and the Township failed “to reach an agreement that would allow [it] to start building the facility without a septic permit,” GSL sued defendants under § 1983. As to its class-of-one equal protection claim, GSL argued the Township subjected it to disparate treatment. The court concluded that its claim failed because it could not “negate every reason for the Township’s actions, nor can it show that animus or ill will motivated” them. The court noted that the “Township required GSL to obtain a septic permit before the building department would issue a building permit. In the alternative, [it] required GSL to execute a hold-harmless agreement so that GSL could begin construction before the issuance of a building permit. GSL has failed to rebut the presumption that the Township had a rational basis for taking these actions.” GSL identified one “instance in which another entity obtained a building permit before securing the necessary approvals from other agencies. On this record, that is insufficient for us to conclude that the Township lacked a rational basis for enforcing its policies four years later to ensure that GSL’s property had an adequate sanitation system.” Further, GSL lacked evidence that the “building department or any other final decisionmaker harbored animus unrelated to their official duties.” GSL’s procedural and substantive due process claims also failed. It lacked “a property interest because it did not engage in construction work of a substantial character after the alleged issuance of the building permits.” And even if it could overcome that hurdle, it fell “well short of showing that Lyon Township acted arbitrarily or irrationally in not issuing building permits for the property.” GSL failed to comply with the Township’s ordinances. Finally, its First Amendment retaliation claim failed “at the first element.” By advising GSL not to send “further project-related communications to the board of trustees en masse, the Township hoped to shield itself from any potential allegations that its board was engaging in secret, backroom deals with property developers.” Its attorney simply told GSL not to contact all the board members at once via email. This “modest restriction on the way citizens may contact the board passes constitutional muster.”