Acierno v. Cloutier ( 1994 )

Opinions of the United
1994 Decisions States Court of Appeals
for the Third Circuit
7-7-1994
Acierno v. Cloutier
Precedential or Non-Precedential:
Docket 93-7456
Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_1994
Recommended Citation
"Acierno v. Cloutier" (1994). 1994 Decisions. Paper 75.
http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_1994/75
This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit at Villanova
University School of Law Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in 1994 Decisions by an authorized administrator of Villanova
University School of Law Digital Repository. For more information, please contact Benjamin.Carlson@law.villanova.edu.
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
__________________________
Nos. 93-7456 & 93-7617
__________________________
FRANK E. ACIERNO
v.
PHILIP CLOUTIER; RICHARD CECIL; ROBERT POWELL;
ROBERT WOODS; CHRISTOPHER ROBERTS; PENROSE HOLLINS;
KAREN VENEZKY; NEW CASTLE COUNTY; MICHAEL MITCHELL,
Philip Cloutier, Richard Cecil,
Robert Powell, Robert Woods,
Christopher Roberts, Penrose
Hollins and Karen Venezky,
Appellants in No. 93-7456
Michael T. Mitchell,
Appellant in No. 93-7617
__________________________
On Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Delaware
(D.C. Civ. No. 92-00385)
__________________________
Argued March 25, 1994
Before: GREENBERG, COWEN and NYGAARD, Circuit Judges
(Filed July 7, 1994)
Collins J. Seitz, Jr. (argued)
Connolly, Bove, Lodge & Hutz
1220 Market Building
P.O. Box 2207
Wilmington, DE 19899
COUNSEL FOR APPELLANTS
PHILIP CLOUTIER, RICHARD CECIL,
ROBERT POWELL, ROBERT WOODS,
CHRISTOPHER ROBERTS, PENROSE
HOLLINS, KAREN VENEZKY AND NEW CASTLE
COUNTY
Barry M. Willoughby (argued)
1
Young, Conaway, Stargatt & Taylor
P.O. Box 391
Rodney Square North, 11th Floor
Wilmington, DE 19899-0391
COUNSEL FOR APPELLANT
MICHAEL T. MITCHELL
Thomas S. Neuberger (argued)
Suite 702
200 West Ninth Street
Ninth Street Plaza
Wilmington, DE 19801-1646
Carl A. Agostini
Agostini and Levitsky
623 King Street, P.O. Box 2323
Wilmington, DE 19899
John J. Yannacone
Yannacone, Fay, Baldo & Daly
200 East State Street, Suite 107
Media, PA 19063
COUNSEL FOR APPELLEE
FRANK E. ACIERNO
__________________________
OPINION OF THE COURT
__________________________
COWEN, Circuit Judge.
In another chapter in the extensive volume of
litigation between Frank Acierno and the members of the New
Castle County, Delaware Council ("County Council") concerning
Acierno's various development projects, we are called upon to
decide whether the members of the County Council are entitled to
immunity from suit for their actions of enacting two ordinances
which down-zoned Acierno's commercial property. These appeals
2
must be dismissed for lack of appellate jurisdiction insofar as
they involve the present members of the County Council from whom
Acierno seeks prospective injunctive relief. We further conclude
that the remaining defendants are immune from suit because the
actions they took with respect to Acierno's commercial property
were substantively and procedurally legislative in nature or did
not abrogate a clearly established property interest.
Accordingly, we will reverse the district court's denial of the
defendants' motion for summary judgment on immunity grounds
insofar as it involves the former members of the County Council.
We will also reverse the district court's order denying First
Assistant County Attorney Mitchell's motion to dismiss on
immunity grounds.
I.
A. Factual Background
Plaintiff Frank E. Acierno, a real estate developer,
purchased a thirty-eight acre parcel of land located in New
Castle County, Delaware (the "property") on October 5, 1984 for
slightly more than $1,000,000. As of April, 1971, the property
had a classification under New Castle County's zoning ordinance
as a "diversified planned unit development" ("DPUD"). A major
land development plan for the property was approved by the County
and recorded on April 11, 1974. The approved record development
plan provided for the construction of a 322 unit apartment
complex (to be called "The Maples Apartments"), together with the
development of .87 acres of land for commercial use.
3
It is undisputed that Acierno's interest in owning the
property was partly by reason of its DPUD zoning classification
and the fact that the property was the subject of an approved
record development plan. Before closing on the property, Acierno
sought and received assurances from the New Castle County
Department of Planning ("Department of Planning") regarding the
current zoning and record plan status of the property. In
response to Acierno's request, the Department of Planning issued
a letter opinion which stated the following: "The land is still
currently zoned Diversified Planned Unit Development (DPUD). The
status of the record plan is that it is current and, therefore,
the uses permitted are noted on the plan subject to limitations
regarding the density, commercial area, etc." Appendix ("App.")
(No. 93-7456) at 131. In reliance on these factors, Acierno paid
a premium of approximately $900,000 for the property. At the
time of purchase, the description of the property specifically
noted that the parcel had been approved by County officials for
the construction of 322 apartment units.
In October, 1985, Acierno filed with the Department of
Planning a revised development plan for the property, which was
now to be known as the "Westhampton project." Thereafter, in
December, 1985, the County Council issued a resolution pursuant
to section 23-81(21) of the County Code0 requesting that the
0
Then County Code § 23-81(21) provided in relevant part as
follows:
If construction has not been completed within . . . five (5)
years after the date of approval of the record development
plan for the [planned unit development ("PUD")] or the date
4
Department of Planning provide a recommendation as to whether the
existing record plan for the property should be voided. The
County Council issued this resolution based on concerns that DPUD
rezonings were not being developed in a timely fashion, that the
density of housing might adversely impact on the general quality
of life in the County, that an updated review of traffic, water,
and sewer facilities was necessary, and that the Subdivision
Advisory Committee should review the project in light of the
character of the existing neighborhood. The record reflects that
the project was the only DPUD-zoned property with a record
development plan subject to review by the County.
In response to the resolution, the Department of
Planning solicited comments from various municipal departments
and determined that the property had adequate traffic, water, and
sewer capacity. Therefore, the Department of Planning did not
make a recommendation that the County Council void the record
development plan. Two months later, the then Council Attorney
sent a memorandum to the County Council pertaining to the
resolution. The memo stated that there was nothing more for the
County Council to consider since the voiding provision of the New
Castle County Code, § 23-81(21), "indicates that the [Department
of Planning] must affirmatively support the voiding of a record
of approval of the record development plan of the last stage
of PUD, if submitted in stages, whichever is longer, then
the approval shall be voidable at the discretion of county
council, upon recommendation of the department of planning.
New Castle County, Del., Code § 23-81(21) (repealed 1987); App.
(No. 93-7456) at 355.
5
plan before Council's discretion comes into being. Without such
prerequisite support, Council has no discretion to act. If this
were not the case, review by the [Department of Planning] would
be meaningless." App. (No. 93-7456) at 140.
On March 11, 1986, then County Council President Karen
Peterson informed Acierno that nothing remained for the County
Council to consider regarding the resolution and that no further
ordinances or resolutions had been proposed concerning the
property. Acierno then undertook a revision of the subdivision
plan0 for the property to address concerns raised by the County
regarding the planned use for the site. The Department of
Planning informed Acierno that his revised and updated
subdivision plan for the Westhampton project was approved and
recorded on April 18, 1986. A subsequent revised subdivision
plan, superseding the April plan, was approved and recorded on
December 5, 1986.
During 1987 the County Council revised, updated, and
amended the DPUD zoning classification. At the time a workshop
concerning the zoning amendment effort was held in October, 1987,
the proposed amended DPUD ordinance contained a "savings clause"
which provided as follows:
Section 4. This ordinance shall become effective
immediately upon its adoption and approval except for
rezoning applications currently pending DPUD approval which
shall be exempt from the provisions of this ordinance, but
subject to the provisions of the Code in effect at the time
of rezoning to DPUD.
0
The County Code distinguishes between a "record plan" and major
and minor "subdivision plans." See New Castle County, Del., Code
§ 20-3 (defining these terms).
6
App. (No. 93-7456) at 92. This proposed DPUD ordinance, known as
"Substitute Ordinance No. 1 to Ordinance 87-025," was not enacted
into law. In response to suggestions made during the workshop,
the savings clause was revised to read as follows:
Section 4. This ordinance shall become effective
immediately upon its adoption and approval except for
rezoning applications currently pending DPUD approval which
shall be exempt from the provisions of this ordinance except
Section 23-81(18), but subject to the provisions in the Code
in effect at the time of rezoning to DPUD.
App. (No. 93-7456) at 113 (emphasis added).0 This revised DPUD
ordinance, known as "Substitute Ordinance No. 2 to Ordinance 87-
025," was adopted into law by the County Council on October 13,
1987. Id. at 93, 113. The language of the savings clause is
relevant to this dispute because Acierno alleges that the County
Council, through an opinion issued by First Assistant County
Attorney Michael T. Mitchell, relied upon the unenacted version
to conclude that it had discretion to void Acierno's record
development plan.
In 1988, Acierno further revised the Westhampton
project subdivision plan and submitted it for County review. In
June, 1988, the Department of Planning informed Acierno that the
0
Current County Code § 23-81(18) allows a landowner with DPUD-
zoned property 10 years from the date of the original rezoning
ordinance to develop the parcel as proposed. If the property has
not been fully developed at the end of the 10 year sunsetting
period, the landowner must submit current support facilities
information establishing the adequacy of these facilities in the
opinion of the Department of Planning in order to continue with
the development as approved. New Castle County, Del., Code § 23-
81(18). This provision replaced former County Code § 23-81(21),
which provided a five year window after the date of the approval
of the PUD record development plan before the County Council had
discretion to void the record plan. Id. § 23-81(21) (repealed
1987); see supra note 1.
7
subdivision plan, superseding the December 5, 1986 subdivision
plan, was approved and recorded. By December, 1988 when a
further revised subdivision plan was approved and recorded,
Acierno had spent in excess of $1,000,000 to further his
development plans for the property, including expenses for
mortgage interest, engineering fees, and real estate taxes. It
is not disputed, however, that Acierno never obtained a building
permit from the County allowing him to start construction of the
Westhampton project.
The County Council again introduced a resolution in
April, 1991 requesting the Department of Planning's
recommendation whether to void the existing record development
plan for the property. The record reflects that the County
Council had concerns similar to those present when a voiding
resolution had been introduced in December, 1985. Acting upon
this resolution and enclosing a copy of the December, 1988
subdivision plan, the then Director of the Department of Planning
contacted the Delaware Department of Transportation for comments
concerning road access and traffic impact.
In a memorandum to the County Council dated May 22,
1991, the then Director advised the County Council that
Subdivision Advisory Committee members had been asked to comment
on the Westhampton project and to identify any issues that might
preclude development of the site as depicted by the record
development and subdivision plans. The memo stated that various
government agencies had identified deficiencies in the
subdivision plan, but acknowledged that the situation could be
8
remedied by Acierno through voluntary revisions to the plan. In
fact, Acierno responded to the Department of Planning by letter
dated May 29, 1991 that he intended to cooperate in order to
address and resolve any deficiencies. By June, 1991, Acierno had
submitted a wetlands delineation report, thereby fulfilling one
of the cited deficiencies.
Defendant-appellant Michael T. Mitchell, First
Assistant County Attorney, was also involved in reviewing the
voiding resolution proposed in April, 1991. He provided a legal
memorandum to the County Council on July 2, 1991 which set forth
his opinion as to whether the Council had authority to void
Acierno's approved record development plan. Mitchell's opinion
concluded that the County Council had discretion to void the
record development plan for the Westhampton project upon
recommendation by the Department of Planning because the old
five-year sunsetting provision of the County Code, repealed § 23-
81(21), applied rather than the newly enacted ten-year sunsetting
provision, § 23-81(18). In coming to this conclusion, Mitchell
relied upon the unenacted savings clause contained in Substitute
Ordinance No. 1 to Ordinance 87-025, rather than the enacted
savings clause which was introduced as part of Substitute No. 2
to that ordinance.
From May, 1991 through April, 1992 Acierno proceeded
with his development efforts by attempting to remedy the
purported deficiencies in the Westhampton plan. Some changes in
the proposed development were incorporated into a revised plan
which was submitted to the Department of Planning for review and
9
approval. The Department of Planning allegedly informed Acierno
in September, 1991 that he had complied with all material
deficiencies contained in the May 22, 1991 memorandum from the
Department of Planning to the County Council. The County Council
tabled the resolution to void Acierno's record development plan
in September, 1991.
The resolution was reexamined the next Spring. In a
letter to the County Council dated April 2, 1992, the Department
of Planning indicated that Acierno had submitted a new
subdivision plan which resolved the wetlands, fire prevention,
and a majority of the public works concerns. The traffic and
road access issues were the only remaining deficiencies that had
not been completely resolved. The Department of Planning
concluded:
In summary, it would appear that the only remaining issue
with respect to our memorandum of May 22, 1991, is access
through the Oakwood Hills subdivision. The Department has
been given no indication that the applicant will voluntarily
remove this access from the plan. Further, we see no
evidence that any meaningful dialogue is ongoing between the
applicant and community to find a compromise position.
Should [the County] Council be of the opinion that this
issue warrants voiding of the plan, the Department would
recommend that it proceed with action on [the voiding
resolution] as this appears to be the only method of
bringing closure on this issue.
App. (No. 93-7456) at 39.
After notice and a public hearing, on April 14, 1992
the County Council enacted Ordinance 91-190 voiding the approved
record development plan and related subdivision plans for the
property. The next day, defendant-appellant Philip Cloutier,
then a member of the County Council, informed the Director of
10
Planning that he intended to introduce an ordinance to rezone the
property from DPUD back to R-2, its residential zoning
classification prior to its rezoning to DPUD in 1971. As
required by statute, legal notice of the proposed zoning
ordinance was published on June 20, 1992; below the title of the
proposed ordinance contained in the notice was bracketed language
indicating that enactment would rezone the property from DPUD to
an R-2 zoning classification.
A statutorily required public hearing was held before
the Department of Planning and Planning Board on July 7, 1992
concerning the proposed rezoning ordinance. Two weeks later, the
Department of Planning recommended the adoption of a substitute
ordinance which would rezone the property from DPUD to an R-1-B
classification instead of an R-2 classification. The R-1-B
zoning classification, which requires an average minimum lot size
of 15,000 square feet, is less restrictive than the R-2 zoning
classification, which requires an average minimum lot size of
21,780 square feet. Compare New Castle County, Del., Code § 23-
39(3) (the R-1-B residence district requires a minimum lot area
of 15,000 square feet) with id. § 23-39(6) (the R-2 residence
district requires a one-half acre or 21,780 square feet minimum
lot area).
On September 9, 1992 the County Council enacted
Substitute No. 1 to Ordinance No. 92-119 rezoning the property
from DPUD to an R-1-B zoning classification. This action was
taken even though all public notices concerning the rezoning had
indicated that upon enactment the property would be rezoned from
11
DPUD to an R-2 classification. The effect of the rezoning was
that Acierno had to suspend his plans to develop a large
apartment building on the property because the R-1-B zoning
classification permits only a variety of less intensive uses. The
district court made a finding of fact that Acierno had spent more
than $1,000,000 pursuing his plan to develop the property.0
B. Procedural Background
Acierno filed a complaint on July 1, 1992 in the United
States District Court for the District of Delaware alleging that
the defendants, through the voiding of his approved record
development plan and the rezoning of his property, violated his
constitutional rights. The original complaint named as
defendants the County and present and former members of the
County Council.0 The complaint was subsequently amended in
April, 1993 to include First Assistant County Attorney Michael T.
Mitchell as a party defendant.
The amended complaint contains two counts. In count
one, Acierno seeks compensatory damages and injunctive relief
against all defendants pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
0
The district court did not clarify whether this figure of
$1,000,000 includes the premium of $900,000 that it found Acierno
paid for the property in reliance on the existing DPUD zoning
classification and approved record development plan when he
purchased the property in 1984. In light of our disposition of
these appeals, resolution of this factual ambiguity is not
necessary and in no way impacts on our decision in this case.
0
The defendants who are presently serving as members of the
County Council are Richard Cecil, Robert Woods, Christopher
Roberts, Penrose Hollins, and Karen Venezky. The defendants who
are former members of the County Council are Philip Cloutier and
Robert Powell.
12
Specifically, Acierno alleges that the defendants violated his
equal protection and procedural and substantive due process
rights by down-zoning his property. In count two, Acierno seeks
injunctive relief against the County under an equitable estoppel
theory.
The present and former County Council members had filed
an answer to the original complaint in which they allege defenses
of legislative and qualified immunity. These defendants and the
County filed a motion for summary judgment on December 4, 1992.
After the filing of various motions and responses which are not
relevant to this appeal, the district court made a determination
to treat the motion by the defendants other than Mitchell as a
motion for partial summary judgment. In a Memorandum Opinion and
Order dated June 9, 1993, the district court granted the motion
for summary judgment on Acierno's procedural due process claim,0
but denied the motion as to the substantive due process and equal
protection claims. See Acierno v. Cloutier, No. 92-385, 1993 WL
215133, at *23-26 (D. Del. June 9, 1993). The district court
also concluded that the defendants were not entitled to summary
judgment with respect to their defenses of legislative and
qualified immunity. Id. at *27-30.
The district court separately addressed the defenses of
legislative and qualified immunity. The district court
0
Acierno has not cross-appealed the granting of the defendants'
motion for summary judgment with respect to the procedural due
process claim, and thus, we have no occasion to address this
theory of the complaint in this opinion or to consider whether we
would have had jurisdiction over a cross-appeal.
13
articulated a two-part test for entitlement to legislative
immunity which requires that the action taken be legislative in
nature rather than administrative, and that the action be taken
in accordance with statutory procedures. Id. at *27. The court
concluded that the enactment of the two ordinances which down-
zoned Acierno's property was administrative, rather than
legislative, because the two ordinances were directed at a single
property owner and not the community at large. Id. The court
further held that the members of the County Council were not
entitled to legislative immunity because they did not strictly
comply with Delaware law when rezoning the property from DPUD to
an R-1-B zoning classification. Id. at *27-29.
Turning to the defense of qualified immunity, the
district court concluded that because Acierno had a vested right
to develop his property pursuant to the DPUD zoning
classification and approved record plan, see id. at *9-19, which
was clearly established by Delaware state law at the time of the
rezoning decisions, no reasonable official would have believed
that the rezoning actions were lawful. Id. at *29. In rejecting
the qualified immunity defense, the district court also found
that a reasonable official would have known that the voiding of
the record plan was precluded by County law. Id. Thus, the
district court decided that the members of the County Council
were not entitled to immunity from suit.
Defendant Mitchell filed a motion to dismiss the
amended complaint on the grounds that it fails to state
cognizable due process and equal protection claims against him
14
and that he is entitled to qualified immunity from suit. The
district court rejected Mitchell's motion to dismiss in a
separate Memorandum Opinion and Order dated September 1, 1993.
Acierno v. Cloutier, No. 92-385, slip op. at 13-19 (D. Del. Sept.
1, 1993). Addressing the defense of qualified immunity, the
district court denied Mitchell's motion because it found that
Mitchell had knowingly, or through his own incompetence, relied
on unadopted legislation when issuing his legal opinion as to
whether the County Council had authority to void the approved
record development plan. Id., slip op. at 19-20.
II.
A. Jurisdiction of the District Court
Plaintiff Acierno filed this action pursuant to 42
U.S.C. § 1983 alleging that the defendants violated his
constitutional rights by down-zoning his property. Thus, the
district court had subject matter jurisdiction over the federal
question claims by virtue of 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1343. It had
supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claim under 28
U.S.C. § 1367. In these appeals, the members of the County
Council and defendant Mitchell contend that the district court
improperly denied their motions to dismiss or for summary
judgment on the grounds of immunity from suit.
B. Appellate Jurisdiction
Ordinarily we do not have appellate jurisdiction to
review district court orders denying motions to dismiss or for
15
summary judgment because there is no final order within the
meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 1291. W.D.D., Inc. v. Thornbury Township,
850 F.2d 170, 171 (3d Cir.) (in banc) (per curiam), cert. denied,
488 U.S. 892, 109 S. Ct. 228 (1988). The Supreme Court, however,
has held that courts of appeal have appellate jurisdiction under
the "collateral order" doctrine of Cohen v. Beneficial Industrial
Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541, 69 S. Ct. 1221 (1949), to consider
whether a defendant is entitled to absolute immunity from suit.
Nixon v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 731, 741-43, 102 S. Ct. 2690, 2697-
98 (1982); see also Schrob v. Catterson, 967 F.2d 929, 934 (3d
Cir. 1992) ("Schrob II"); Schrob v. Catterson, 948 F.2d 1402,
1406-07 (3d Cir. 1991) ("Schrob I"). This principle of appellate
jurisdiction has been extended to orders rejecting a defendant's
entitlement to qualified immunity from suit to the extent that
the decision turns on issues of law. Mitchell v. Forsyth, 472
U.S. 511, 524-30, 105 S. Ct. 2806, 2814-17 (1985); see also
Kulwicki v. Dawson, 969 F.2d 1454, 1459-61 (3d Cir. 1992).
In adhering to this theory of appellate jurisdiction,
we have recognized that an order denying a defense of immunity is
reviewable before trial because entitlement to "immunity from
federal claims encompasses not only immunity from liability, but
also immunity from suit." Brown v. Grabowski, 922 F.2d 1097,
1105 (3d Cir. 1990), cert. denied, 501 U.S. 1218, 111 S. Ct. 2827(1991). See also Federal Ins. Co. v. Richard I. Rubin & Co., 12
F.3d 1270, 1281 (3d Cir. 1993) (sovereign immunity is an immunity
from trial), cert. denied, __ U.S. __, 114 S. Ct 2101 (1994). The
Supreme Court has instructed that the first step in reviewing a
16
district court's qualified immunity decision is to determine
whether the plaintiff has "allege[d] the violation of a clearly
established constitutional right" at all. Siegert v. Gilley, 500
U.S. 226, __, 111 S. Ct. 1789, 1793 (1991); see also D.R. by L.R.
v. Middle Bucks Area Vocational Technical Sch., 972 F.2d 1364,
1368 (3d Cir. 1992) (in banc), cert. denied, __ U.S. __, 113 S.
Ct. 1045 (1993). This threshold inquiry requires us to determine
whether the constitutional right asserted by Acierno was
"'clearly established' at the time the defendants acted," and
whether Acierno "has asserted a violation of a constitutional
right at all." Siegert, 500 U.S. at __, 111 S. Ct. at 1793.0
0
The Supreme Court's majority opinion in Siegert, when read as a
whole, seems to suggest that where practicable or expedient an
appellate court should first address whether the plaintiff has
alleged a cognizable constitutional claim at all, before turning
to the question of whether the constitutional right asserted was
"clearly established" at the time the defendant acted. 500 U.S.
at __, 111 S. Ct. at 1793-94. In fact, we have emphasized this
aspect of the Siegert decision in a subsequent case where we
decided to address all plaintiffs' allegations of constitutional
error as a predicate question to whether the constitutional
rights were "clearly established" at the time the defendant
acted. See D.R. by L.R., 972 F.2d at 1368. Nevertheless,
concurring in the judgment in Siegert, Justice Kennedy recognized
that in certain cases, like the one before the Supreme Court in
that case, it is an "altogether normal procedure" for the court
of appeals to decide the case "on the ground that appear[s] to
offer the most direct and appropriate resolution," 500 U.S. at
__, 111 S. Ct. at 1795 (Kennedy, J, concurring in the judgment),
which in difficult constitutional cases will sometimes be whether
the constitutional right was "clearly established" at the time
the defendant acted. Furthermore, the majority opinion in
Siegert does not state that courts of appeals must always as an
initial inquiry address whether a constitutional violation has
been alleged by the plaintiff. In fact, in cases decided after
both Siegert and D.R. by L.R., we have opted to address whether
the constitutional right asserted was "clearly established" at
the time the defendant acted, without initially deciding whether
a constitutional violation was alleged at all. See Rappa v. New
17
The present case involves two appeals: (1) the
defendants who are current and former members of the County
Council have appealed the district court's order denying their
motion for summary judgment insofar as the court rejected their
defenses of legislative and qualified immunity from suit; and (2)
defendant Mitchell has appealed the district court order denying
his motion to dismiss insofar as the court rejected his defense
of qualified immunity from suit. Although all parties agree that
we have jurisdiction under the collateral order doctrine to
consider the issues of legislative and qualified immunity to some
extent, they disagree on the scope of our appellate jurisdiction.
The Nixon case makes clear that we have appellate
jurisdiction to consider whether the former members of the County
Council are entitled to absolute legislative immunity. 457 U.S.
at 741-43, 102 S. Ct. at 2697-98; see also Schrob I, 948 F.2d at
1406-07; Venen v. Sweet, 758 F.2d 117, 121-22 (3d Cir. 1985);
Forsyth v. Kleindienst, 599 F.2d 1203, 1207-09 (3d Cir. 1979),
cert. denied, 453 U.S. 913, 101 S. Ct. 3147 (1981). The scope of
Castle County, 18 F.3d 1043, 1077-79 (3d Cir. 1994); Abdul-Akbar
v. Watson, 4 F.3d 195, 201-05 (3d Cir. 1993).
In cases such as the present one, where the court would be
required to undertake a detailed analysis of unreported and
undeveloped state and county law issues in order to determine
whether a cognizable constitutional claim was alleged at all, we
believe a more prudent course is to first address whether the
constitutional right asserted by the plaintiff was "clearly
established" at the time the defendant acted. We will follow
such a course in this case because, as will be explained infra,
the state and county law issues which we would need to decide in
order to determine whether Acierno possessed a vested right to
develop his commercial property before the rezoning ordinances
were passed are particularly difficult and undeveloped.
18
our jurisdiction to consider the issues of qualified immunity,
and legislative immunity as concerns the present members of the
County Council, is a more complex question, however, especially
in light of the fact that Acierno seeks prospective injunctive
relief against several of the defendants. When deciding the
appealability of qualified immunity issues in Mitchell, a case in
which only monetary damages were sought, the Supreme Court
expressly left open the question whether a case involving claims
for injunctive relief would change the equation. 472 U.S. at 519
n.5, 105 S. Ct. at 2812 n.5. We subsequently addressed that
question and held that the denial of a defendant's claim to
entitlement to qualified immunity is not immediately appealable
when the plaintiff has requested injunctive relief. Prisco v.
United States Dep't of Justice, 851 F.2d 93, 95-96 (3d Cir.
1988), cert. denied, 490 U.S. 1089, 109 S. Ct. 2428 (1989).
As a result, plaintiff Acierno submits that we must
dismiss these appeals insofar as they involve present County
Council members Cecil, Woods, Roberts, Hollins, and Venezky, and
First Assistant County Attorney Mitchell, because he seeks
prospective injunctive relief against these parties.0 With
0
Acierno also contends that the district court's denial of the
motion for summary judgment on legislative immunity grounds as
concerns the present members of the County Council falls into the
ambit of the Prisco rule and is not immediately appealable. We
agree. Although the Prisco case did not explicitly involve an
issue of absolute immunity, its holding extends to legislative as
well as qualified immunity. 851 F.2d at 96 ("We hold, therefore,
that in an action in which claims for prospective relief remain
pending, a party against whom they remain pending may not appeal
from the denial of a motion for summary judgment on immunity
grounds.").
19
respect to former County Council members Cloutier and Powell,
against whom it is impossible to obtain prospective injunctive
relief, Acierno concedes that the order denying their motion for
summary judgment on legislative and qualified immunity grounds is
immediately appealable.
The defendants argue that Prisco was wrongly decided in
light of the prevailing rule among our sister courts of appeal
that despite the existence of a request for injunctive relief
pre-trial orders denying a defendant's entitlement to qualified
immunity are immediately appealable. See Burns v. County of
Cambria, Pa., 971 F.2d 1015, 1019-20 (3d Cir. 1992) (canvassing
cases from the nine circuits which disagree with Prisco), cert.
denied, __ U.S. __, 113 S. Ct. 1049 (1993). We, of course, have
no occasion in this case to reconsider Prisco and are bound to
follow our precedent. See Internal Operating Procedures, United
States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, Rule 9.1 (prior
reported opinions can be overruled only by the court sitting in
banc). Thus, we will adhere to the Prisco rule and dismiss these
appeals insofar as they involve issues of whether the present
County Council members are entitled to absolute and qualified
immunity.
In addition to arguing that Prisco was wrongly decided,
Mitchell also seeks to distinguish Prisco by arguing that Acierno
has made no viable claim for injunctive relief against him. He
contends that his only action with respect to this entire dispute
was the issuance of a legal opinion to the County Council which
indicated that the Council had discretion to void the property's
20
record plan. In support of his argument that the amended
complaint contains no viable injunctive relief against him,
Mitchell cites only to Instant Air Freight Co. v. C.F. Air
Freight, Inc., 882 F.2d 797 (3d Cir. 1989). That case provides
no support for his position because it merely reviewed the
standards employed by a district court in granting preliminary
injunctive relief and concluded that the court abused its
discretion in finding that the plaintiff had met its burden of
demonstrating irreparable harm. Id. at 800-05. Nevertheless,
Prisco allows us to "examine[] the complaint carefully to
determine whether any of its allegations would permit proof of
facts warranting any prospective relief against him." 851 F.2d
at 96.
We must accept the factual allegations contained in the
amended complaint as true and draw all factual inferences in
favor of plaintiff Acierno as the non-moving party because this
appeal arrives in our court after the denial of motion to
dismiss. Kulwicki, 969 F.2d at 1462. In his amended complaint
Acierno makes several allegations concerning Mitchell's role in
the voiding of the record plan, as well as allegations that all
defendants, including Mitchell, have acted arbitrarily and
abusively to deprive Acierno of his right to develop commercial
property. The amended complaint contains a general request
seeking preliminary and permanent injunctive relief for
reinstatement of the record plan and DPUD zoning, a declaration
that Acierno has a vested right to develop the property as zoned,
and a prohibition on further violations of Acierno's
21
constitutional rights. App. (No. 93-7456) at 26. Nowhere in the
complaint, however, does Acierno allege that it lies within the
scope of Mitchell's job responsibilities to take action
reinstating his record plan and DPUD zoning, or to declare that
he possesses a vested development right. Furthermore, the
request for an injunction prohibiting further violations of
Acierno's constitutional rights is overbroad given the nature of
Mitchell's limited role in this dispute. Therefore, we hold that
there is no viable injunctive relief available against Mitchell
as pleaded in the amended complaint, which distinguishes his
appeal from the rule of Prisco. We have appellate jurisdiction
to consider whether Mitchell was entitled to dismissal as a
defendant on qualified immunity grounds.
In sum, we will dismiss the appeal of the members of
the County Council insofar as it involves questions of
legislative and qualified immunity with respect to present
members against whom injunctive relief is sought. We have
limited appellate jurisdiction to consider whether the former
members of the County Council are entitled to absolute
legislative and qualified immunity from suit. We also have
appellate jurisdiction to consider whether the district court
erred in denying First Assistant County Attorney Mitchell's
motion to dismiss on qualified immunity grounds.0 Furthermore,
0
With these appeals, the defendants argue that the district court
erred as a matter of law in failing to grant their motion for
summary judgment as to Acierno's claim alleging a violation of
the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. It is
not clear from the district court's opinion that the defendants
argued that they are entitled to absolute legislative immunity or
22
in our consideration of the qualified immunity issue as it
relates to the substantive due process claim, we will first
determine whether plaintiff Acierno has asserted a violation of a
clearly established constitutional right at all.
III.
In this case we must decide whether the district court
correctly denied the former members of the County Council's
motion for summary judgment on legislative and qualified immunity
grounds, and First Assistant County Attorney Mitchell's motion to
dismiss on qualified immunity grounds. Because "[t]his appeal
presents a purely legal question concerning the scope of the
immunity doctrine," we exercise plenary review over the district
court's denial of the summary judgment motion on legislative
immunity grounds. Donivan v. Dallastown Borough, 835 F.2d 486,
487 (3d Cir. 1987), cert. denied, 485 U.S. 1035, 108 S. Ct. 1596(1988).
We also exercise plenary review over the denial of the
summary judgment motion and motion to dismiss on qualified
immunity grounds because this issue presents a "purely legal"
question. Burns, 971 F.2d at 1020; Lee v. Mihalich, 847 F.2d 66,
qualified immunity with respect to this allegation. Furthermore,
in their brief submitted to this court the defendants did not
argue that their immunity defenses also relieve them of liability
on the equal protection claim. Accordingly, because our
jurisdiction is limited to addressing the defenses of legislative
and qualified immunity for the former members of the County
Council and Mitchell, we do not express any opinion concerning
whether Acierno possesses a viable claim for a violation of the
Equal Protection Clause or whether there are immunity defenses
for any of the defendants to such a claim.
23
67 (3d Cir. 1988). To the extent that the district court
interpreted state and county law in determining whether Acierno
had a vested right to develop the property, the district court is
not entitled to any deference. Salve Regina College v. Russell,
499 U.S. 225, 231, 111 S. Ct. 1217, 1221 (1991); cf. Grimes v.
Vitalink Communications Corp., 17 F.3d 1553, 1557 (3d Cir. 1994).
The determinations regarding state and county law necessary to
decide whether the defendants are entitled to qualified immunity
will be reviewed de novo. Salve Regina College, 499 U.S. at 231,
111 S. Ct. at 1221.
24
IV.
A.
We first address the issue of whether the former
members of the County Council are entitled to absolute
legislative immunity for their actions because in the event we
agree with their position, that would obviate the need for
evaluating their claim to entitlement to qualified immunity. The
Supreme Court has held that individual members of state
legislatures are absolutely immune from suit for damages under 42
U.S.C. § 1983 when conducting legitimate legislative activity.
Tenney v. Brandhove, 341 U.S. 367, 376-79, 71 S. Ct. 783, 788-89
(1951). After the Supreme Court extended this protection of
absolute immunity to regional legislators functioning in a
capacity comparable to that of members of a state legislature,
Lake Country Estates, Inc. v. Tahoe Regional Planning Agency, 440
U.S. 391, 402-06, 99 S. Ct. 1171, 1178-79 (1979), we further
extended it to protect members of local legislative bodies for
actions taken in a purely legislative capacity. Aitchison v.
Raffiani, 708 F.2d 96, 98-99 (3d Cir. 1983); see also Ryan v.
Burlington County, N.J., 889 F.2d 1286, 1290 (3d Cir. 1989).0
0
In Bass v. Attardi, 868 F.2d 45, 49-50 (3d Cir. 1989), we held
that members of a municipal planning board, acting pursuant to
their governmental function as defined by state statute when
making land use decisions, were absolutely immune in their
individual capacities from a damage suit brought under 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983. Acierno does not allege that the members of the County
Council were acting in a non-governmental function, e.g., outside
of powers delegated to them by state law, when they enacted the
two ordinances which down-zoned his property. Therefore, for
purposes of deciding this case, we will assume without deciding
25
The County Council, whose members are elected, is a
local governmental body that has been given a combination of
legislative and administrative powers. See Del. Code Ann. tit.
9, §§ 1146, 4901 (1989). "It is only with respect to the
legislative powers delegated to them by the state legislatures
that the members of local governing boards are entitled to
absolute immunity." Ryan, 889 F.2d at 1290. Thus, our task in
making this immunity determination requires us to examine whether
the members of the County Council were acting in an
administrative or legislative capacity when they enacted the
ordinances down-zoning Acierno's property. Abraham v. Pekarski,
728 F.2d 167, 174 (3d Cir.), cert. denied, 467 U.S. 1242, 104 S.
Ct. 3513 (1984).
We have established a two-part test to determine
whether actions are to be regarded as legislative for immunity
purposes: (1) the action must be "substantively" legislative,
which requires that it involve a policy-making or line-drawing
decision; and (2) the action must be "procedurally" legislative,
which requires that it be undertaken through established
legislative procedures. Ryan, 889 F.2d at 1290-91. Providing a
further inquiry to help define the first part of the Ryan test,
in that case we stated that decisions affecting a single
individual or a small number of people do not implicate
legislative power, and thus, such actions are administrative in
that the members of the County Council were acting within their
statutorily defined governmental function when the two ordinances
were enacted.
26
nature. Id. at 1291. Furthermore, in prior cases we have
indicated that such an inquiry is an appropriate factor to
consider when determining whether an action is legislative or
administrative, see Donivan, 835 F.2d at 488; Rogin v. Bensalem
Township, 616 F.2d 680, 693-94 (3d Cir. 1980), cert. denied, 450
U.S. 1029, 101 S. Ct. 1737 (1981), but we have not held that this
inquiry is conclusive.
When the district court conducted its analysis under
the first part of the Ryan test, it focused only on the factor of
whether the action was directed toward a single individual or the
community at large. The district court stated, "legislative acts
are those which apply generally to the entire community, whereas
acts specifically directed at one or a few individuals are
executive or administrative acts." Acierno v. Cloutier, No. 92-
385, 1993 WL 215133, at *27 (D. Del. June 9, 1993).0 On the
basis of the fact that passage of the two ordinances did not
rezone any other landowner's property, the district court held
that the County Council's actions with respect to Acierno's
property were administrative in nature. Id.We believe the district court erred in its application
of the "substantive prong" of the Ryan test by placing too much
emphasis on the factor of whether the action was directed at a
0
The district court cited the following cases for this
proposition: Donivan, 835 F.2d at 488; Rogin, 616 F.2d at 693;
Ryan v. Burlington County, N.J., 708 F. Supp. 623, 640 (D.N.J.),
aff'd, 889 F.2d 1286 (3d Cir. 1989); and de Botton v. Marple
Township, 689 F. Supp. 477, 482-83 (E.D. Pa. 1988). As we
already stated, in Donivan and Rogin we did rely in part on this
factor, but we did not hold that this inquiry is dispositive of
the administrative/legislative determination.
27
single individual or the community at large. It is difficult to
find fault with the district court, however, because we concede
that the prior decisions of this court are somewhat unclear as to
what are the relevant factors, and how much weight each should be
given, in deciding whether zoning and other land use actions are
substantively legislative or administrative in nature.
Furthermore, there is a consistent thread running through the
case law which indicates that courts often point to the narrow
target of an action as indicative of an administrative, rather
than legislative, act. See, e.g., Cutting v. Muzzey, 724 F.2d
259, 261 (1st Cir. 1984) (planning board's decision "to insist on
completion of a particular road before granting approval of a
specific proposed subdivision" was an action based on specific,
rather than legislative, facts tending to single out specific
individuals and affect them differently than others; thus, the
action was administrative rather than legislative in nature);
Scott v. Greenville County, 716 F.2d 1409, 1422-23 (4th Cir.
1983) (county council members who reviewed a specific building
permit application assumed a non-legislative role); Jodeco, Inc.
v. Hann, 674 F. Supp. 488, 495 (D.N.J. 1987) ("Official acts
affecting the community at-large might tip the balance in favor
of a finding of legislative conduct, while acts directed at one
or a few individuals might be dispositive of executive or
administrative conduct.").
In Jodeco, the district court commented that there was
no definitive standard in this circuit for distinguishing between
legislative and non-legislative actions. 674 F. Supp. at 494-95.
28
Although in Ryan we clarified the test somewhat by indicating
that actions must be both substantively and procedurally
legislative in nature in order to be entitled to absolute
immunity, we believe that the "substantive prong" of the standard
requires further elaboration. To fill the gap which has been
left open in our prior cases dealing with legislative immunity,
we repeat the standard employed by the district court in Jodeco:
[In order to distinguish] legislative from non-legislative
functions, . . . the appropriate inquiry [is] whether the
conduct of the defendant zoning officials involved either
the enactment or amendment of zoning legislation or simply
the enforcement of already existing zoning laws. Acts
performed pursuant to the former are legislative in
character and the officials performing them are entitled to
absolute immunity, while acts performed pursuant to the
latter are administrative, executive, or ministerial and the
officials performing them may only receive the protection of
qualified immunity. Factored into this equation should be
the impact that such official conduct has on the citizens of
the municipality. Official acts affecting the community at-
large might tip the balance in favor of a finding of
legislative conduct, while acts directed at one or a few
individuals might be dispositive of executive or
administrative conduct.
674 F. Supp. at 494-95. We have previously cited with approval
the court's analysis in Jodeco concluding that members of
planning boards in New Jersey are entitled to absolute immunity
because their responsibilities "are so integrally related to the
judicial process," id. at 496. See Bass v. Attardi, 868 F.2d 45,
50 (3d Cir. 1989). Likewise, we now adopt the court's analysis
of the legislative/administrative determination as our own.
In the present case, the members of the County Council
acted to down-zone Acierno's property through two separate,
albeit related, actions. The first action was the enactment of
29
an ordinance on April 14, 1992 voiding the approved record
development plan and related subdivision plans for the property.
The second action was the enactment of an ordinance on September
9, 1992 rezoning the property from DPUD to an R-1-B zoning
classification. Accordingly, we must consider each of these
actions under the standard articulated above.
The enactment of the ordinance voiding the approved
record development plan was undertaken by the County Council
pursuant to the authority of the sunsetting provision of the
County Code, § 23-81(18), which allows the Council to revoke
development rights after the passage of ten years to ensure that
facilities and infrastructure are sufficient. This ordinance was
passed in an effort to facilitate enforcement of existing zoning
laws, not to facilitate enactment or amendment of new zoning laws
involving broad-based policy or line-drawing determinations.
Furthermore, the ordinance affected only one piece of property,
and thus was aimed at only one landowner, Frank Acierno. We thus
conclude that the County Council's enactment of Ordinance 91-190
on April 14, 1992, which voided the approved record development
plan and related subdivision plans for the property, was an
administrative, not legislative, action. The members of the
County Council are not entitled to legislative immunity with
respect to this action.0
0
The parties disagree as to whether the entire rezoning process,
which involved the enactment of the two ordinances, was
accomplished consistently with all the procedures required by
state law. In light of our conclusion that the enactment of
Ordinance 91-190 was not substantively legislative in character,
30
We now turn to the County Council's second action, the
enactment of Substitute 1 to Ordinance 92-119 which rezoned the
property from DPUD to an R-1-B zoning classification. This
action of rezoning the property was undertaken pursuant to the
legislative powers delegated to the County Council under Delaware
state law. See Del. Code Ann. tit. 9, §§ 2601-2614 (1989 & Supp.
1992). Furthermore, the rezoning of the property was
accomplished through the ordinance procedure, which we have found
necessary in order for the action to be substantively legislative
in character. Donivan, 835 F.2d at 488-89. If not for the fact
that the ordinance was aimed at one parcel of property and one
landowner, the action would appear to be substantively
legislative, not administrative, in nature.
Nevertheless, this case requires us to address the
difficult question of whether a rezoning action that is otherwise
substantively legislative in character is removed from the scope
of actions protected by the absolute immunity doctrine merely
because it was directed at one parcel of property. In Ryan, we
did state that "[w]here the decision affects a small number or a
single individual, the legislative power is not implicated, and
the act takes on the nature of administration." 889 F.2d at
1291. However, we did not intend this consideration as a bright-
line rule which automatically overrides other important
indications that an action is substantively legislative in
character. Rather, we intended this consideration as a factor
we need not address whether this action also violated the
"procedural prong" of the Ryan test.
31
that is usually important but may not be dispositive of the
administrative/legislative outcome. This reading of Ryan is
confirmed by the manner in which the Ryan court applied its test.
While noting that the decision at issue "did not affect the
community as a whole," the court went on to state that "[t]his is
a strong indication that legislative line-drawing was not
implicated." Id. Therefore, the Ryan court itself did not apply
the factor that the decision was directed at a single individual
or a small group as a dispositive consideration which trumps
other relevant factors.
Although we have indicated that the factor of an action
being directed at one property or one landowner is an important
consideration, other courts have concluded that the rezoning of a
single parcel of land to a less intensive use through the
enactment of an ordinance is legislative activity. See Fralin &
Waldron, Inc. v. County of Henrico, Va., 474 F. Supp. 1315, 1320-
21 (E.D. Va. 1979) (members of planning board were engaged in
legislation when acting to rezone a single parcel of property);
Shellburne, Inc. v. New Castle County, 293 F. Supp. 237, 244 (D.
Del. 1968) ("the members of the County Council were acting within
the scope of legitimate legislative activity when they voted to
rezone plaintiff's property"). Delaware state law is to the same
effect. See Shellburne, Inc. v. Buck, 240 A.2d 757, 758 (Del.
1968). Furthermore, the cases in which the factor of the zoning
ordinance being directed at only a single or few property owners
has been dispositive of the administrative/legislative
determination generally have been variance or special exception
32
decisions, not rezoning decisions. See, e.g., Rogin, 616 F.2d at693 n.60 (denial of use variance); Cutting, 724 F.2d at 261(subdivision approval); Scott, 716 F.2d at 1422-23 (denial of
building permit); Jodeco, 674 F. Supp. at 496 (denial of variance
applications).
Finally, we also believe that the members of a county
legislature who enact a rezoning ordinance affecting only one
property or landowner may still be acting in a policy-making or
line-drawing manner. In the present case, the subject property
consisted of thirty-eight acres of unimproved land with an
approved development plan calling for 322 apartment units and
some commercial use. Through the normal review process, specific
concerns arose such as whether the development plan complied with
wetlands regulations, the fire prevention code, and public works
regulations, and that the project as planned may pose serious
traffic and road access problems. In response to these concerns
and, ultimately, Acierno's failure to address all of them
adequately in a timely fashion, the County Council acted to
regulate the intensity of development on this fairly large parcel
of land by passing the rezoning ordinance.
Under these circumstances, a blind adherence to the
principle that legislation affecting a single property or owner
is administrative rather than legislative would eviscerate the
overarching aim of protecting local legislators from suit under
the absolute immunity doctrine when they make broad policy
decisions to further the communities in which they serve.
Therefore, we hold that the members of the County Council in
33
enacting Substitute 1 to Ordinance 92-119, which rezoned the
property from DPUD to an R-1-B zoning classification, were acting
in a substantively legislative manner. Nevertheless, as we made
clear in Ryan, the members of the County Council are not entitled
to absolute legislative immunity for this action unless it was
also procedurally legislative. 889 F.2d at 1290-91.
The enactment of Substitute 1 to Ordinance 92-119 was
procedurally legislative if it was undertaken through established
legislative procedures. Id. That is, the members of the County
Council are entitled to absolute immunity for this action if they
followed "the statutory procedures specified for such action."
Abraham, 728 F.2d at 174. Addressing the "procedural prong" of
the Ryan test, the district court held that the members of the
County Council failed to comply with specified statutory
procedures in rezoning the property from DPUD to an R-1-B zoning
classification. Acierno v. Cloutier, No. 92-385, 1993 WL 215133,
at *27 (D. Del. June 9, 1993). Specifically, the district court
found that the County Council violated title 9, section 1152(b)
of the Delaware Code by enacting an ordinance which had been
"amended as to [a] matter of substance which [was] not embraced
within the title of the ordinance" without subjecting the
ordinance "to all of the procedures . . . required in the case of
a newly introduced ordinance." Id. at *28 (quoting Del. Code
Ann. tit. 9, § 1152(b)).
Acierno took issue with the procedure employed to
rezone his property because the County Council ultimately adopted
an ordinance rezoning the property to an R-1-B classification,
34
while bracketed language below the title of the originally
proposed ordinance, for which the County Council had complied
with all requisite procedures, stated that the ordinance would
rezone the property to an R-2 classification. In the district
court, the members of the County Council argued that this change
did not affect the title of the ordinance and, in any event, was
not a material amendment because the R-1-B zoning classification
is less restrictive than the R-2 zoning classification. The
district court rejected these arguments because the very purpose
of the ordinance was to change the zoning classification, and
because the actual language which was changed was part of the
title of the ordinance and was not for informational purposes
only.
On appeal, the members of the County Council argue that
the district court's "technical objection" to the allegedly
deficient notice does not prevent members of municipal
legislative bodies from establishing legislative immunity. We
reject the notion that our decision in Abraham stands for the
broad proposition that a mere technical violation of the
statutory procedures specified for legislative action, by itself,
converts an otherwise legislative action into an administrative
action. Rather, in Abraham, we looked to the failure to follow
procedures established by state law, which were required to be
followed in order to legislate, as indicative that a township
board had invoked its managerial powers in dismissing an
employee. 728 F.2d at 174-75. Thus, we viewed the compliance
with statutory procedures as a prerequisite for finding an action
35
legislative in character, but we did not hold that a mere
technical violation of a statutory procedure would have the
effect of converting an otherwise legislative action into an
administrative action to which absolute immunity does not apply.
Addressing the "procedural prong" of the immunity
determination, in Ryan we stated that "[t]his principle requires
that constitutionally accepted procedures of enacting the
legislation must be followed in order to assure that the act is a
legitimate, reasoned decision representing the will of the people
which the governing body has been chosen to serve." 889 F.2d at
1291. In the present case, it is undisputed that the members of
the County Council followed all the statutory procedures required
in order to enact an ordinance: (1) a legal notice of the
proposed zoning ordinance was published; (2) a public hearing was
held before the Department of Planning and Planning Board; and
(3) the adopted ordinance, though amended during the Planning
Board hearing, was enacted by vote at a public meeting of the
County Council. Even though the version of the ordinance
ultimately enacted, Substitute 1 to Ordinance 92-119, was not
formally put through all the statutory procedures after the
amendment was agreed upon at the public hearing held before the
Department of Planning and Planning Board, we believe that the
members of the County Council engaged in legislative activity and
took the steps necessary to rezone the property in compliance
with Delaware law.
We also believe there to be an important distinction
between general adherence to legislative procedure for the
36
purposes of taking legislative action as a matter of federal law,
as opposed to full compliance with all technical requirements for
such legislative action to be valid under state or county law. It
may well be that if in fact state law required the substitute to
the originally proposed ordinance to also go through all the
statutorily required notice procedures and hearings that Acierno
would be able to successfully attack the validity of Substitute 1
to Ordinance 92-119 in an administrative or state court
proceeding. But the fact that Acierno may have an alternative
remedy based on an alleged failure of the legislative body to
follow state-mandated procedures does not mean that, as a matter
of federal law, the resulting action is transformed from one that
is procedurally legislative into one that is not.
Therefore, we hold that in making the determination of
whether a particular action was procedurally legislative or not,
the court need only be satisfied that the municipal body is
acting pursuant to the basic legislative procedure. In the
present case, we find no indication in the record that the
members of the County Council bypassed state-mandated procedures
in bad faith when enacting Substitute 1 to Ordinance 92-119.
Rather, the record reflects that the County Council followed the
ordinance procedure, published notice of its intended action, and
held the appropriate public hearings before enacting the rezoning
ordinance. Consequently, we hold that the district court erred
in holding that a possible violation of the publication notice
37
requirement destroyed the legislative character of the County
Council's act of enacting Substitute 1 to Ordinance 92-119.0
In sum, we conclude that the former members of the
County Council are entitled to absolute legislative immunity for
rezoning Acierno's property through the enactment of Substitute 1
to Ordinance 92-119 because that action was substantively and
procedurally legislative in character. Nevertheless, the former
members of the County Council are not entitled to legislative
immunity for the enactment of Ordinance 91-190, which voided the
approved record development plan and related subdivision plans
for the property, because that action was administrative in
nature, not legislative. We will reverse in part, and affirm in
part, that part of the district court's order denying the
defendants' motion for summary judgment on legislative immunity
grounds. Therefore, we must address whether the former members
of the County Council are entitled to protection under the more
0
The members of the County Council also argue that their action
of rezoning the property did not violate the "procedural prong"
of the Ryan test (1) because that portion of the ordinance which
indicated the precise zone the property would be changed to was
not part of the title of the ordinance, and thus was not a
material alteration; (2) because Acierno does not have standing
to complain since he attended and participated in the public
hearings; (3) because he was not prejudiced since the R-1-B
zoning classification allows for more intensive development than
the R-2 zoning classification; and (4) because the remedy that
the district court's ruling would require--a return to the
Planning Board for review and subsequent republication--would be
unnecessarily duplicative since it made the recommendation that
the proposed ordinance be amended in the first place. In light
of our conclusion that the enactment of Substitute 1 to Ordinance
92-119 was procedurally legislative, we need not address these
contentions.
38
limited doctrine of qualified immunity for their action voiding
the approved record development plan for the property.
B.
Addressing the defendants' claim of entitlement to
qualified immunity from suit requires us to determine whether
Acierno possessed a "clearly established" constitutional right to
develop his property which was abrogated by the County Council
through the action of voiding his record development plan and
subdivision plan. Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 818, 102
S. Ct. 2727, 2738 (1981). In his amended complaint, Acierno
alleges that he had a vested right to develop the property
pursuant to the DPUD zoning classification and the approved
record development plan. The district court agreed with Acierno
and found that his vested right to develop the property arose
from independent Delaware state and County law sources. Our
review of County law and Delaware state law reveals that if
Acierno did possess a vested right to develop his property as
zoned, that right was not so "clearly established" as to strip
the former members of the County Council and First Assistant
County Attorney Mitchell from an entitlement to qualified
immunity. Thus, we will reverse the district court's denial of
the defendants' motion for summary judgment on qualified immunity
grounds for the former members of the County Council, and its
denial of Mitchell's motion to dismiss on qualified immunity
grounds.
39
When considering whether members of local legislative
bodies are entitled to immunity from suit, we have recognized
that there is a compelling need for such a protective doctrine
because of the severe chilling effect numerous suits for damages
would have on prospective officials. See Jodeco, Inc. v. Hann,
674 F. Supp. 488, 493 (D.N.J. 1987) (cited with approval in Bass
v. Attardi, 868 F.2d 45, 49-50 (3d Cir. 1989)). We also believe
that adherence to the immunity doctrine is necessary in order to
allow elected and appointed officials to make intelligent land
use decisions without the constant fear of litigation infecting
the decision-making process. Bass, 868 F.2d at 50 n.11 (quoting
Anastasio v. Planning Bd., 209 N.J. Super. 499, 526, 507 A.2d
1194, 1208, certification denied, 107 N.J. 46, 526 A.2d 136(1986)). Recognizing similar concerns, the Supreme Court has
indicated that the qualified immunity defense has evolved to
provide "ample protection to all but the plainly incompetent or
those who knowingly violate the law." Malley v. Briggs, 475 U.S.
335, 341, 106 S. Ct. 1092, 1096 (1986); see also Schrob I, 948
F.2d 1402, 1421 (3d Cir. 1991).
In Harlow v. Fitzgerald, the Supreme Court announced
that the test for determining whether government officials are
entitled to qualified immunity for their actions involves an
objective, rather than subjective, inquiry. 457 U.S. at 815-18,
102 S. Ct. at 2736-38. The Supreme Court stated, "government
officials performing discretionary functions generally are
shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their
conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or
40
constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have
known." Id. at 818, 102 S. Ct. at 2738; see also Burns v. County
of Cambria, Pa., 971 F.2d 1015, 1021 (3d Cir. 1992), cert.
denied, __ U.S. __, 113 S. Ct. 1049 (1993).
Subsequently, the Supreme Court has clarified that the
first inquiry in considering a claim to entitlement to qualified
immunity is to examine whether the plaintiff has "allege[d] the
violation of a clearly established constitutional right." Siegert
v. Gilley, 500 U.S. 226, __, 111 S. Ct. 1789, 1793 (1991); see
supra note 7. In a recent discussion of the "clearly
established" right aspect of the qualified immunity
determination, we stated:
The right an official is alleged to have violated must have
been "clearly established" in a "particularized" sense.
Anderson v. Creighton, 483 U.S. [635,] 640, 107 S. Ct.
[3034,] 3039 [(1987)]. That is, "[t]he contours of the
right must be sufficiently clear that a reasonable official
would understand that what he is doing violates that right."
Id. Thus, qualified immunity does not apply if "reasonable
officials in the defendants' position at the relevant time
could have believed, in light of what was in the decided
case law, that their conduct would be unlawful." Good v.
Dauphin County Social Servs. for Children and Youth, 891
F.2d 1087, 1092 (3d Cir. 1989).
Abdul-Akbar v. Watson, 4 F.3d 195, 202 (3d Cir. 1993).
When complaining of a violation of substantive due
process rights, a plaintiff must prove that the governmental
authority acted to "infringe[] a property interest encompassed by
the Fourteenth Amendment." Midnight Sessions, Ltd. v. City of
Philadelphia, 945 F.2d 667, 679 (3d Cir. 1991), cert. denied, __
U.S. __, 112 S. Ct. 1668 (1992).
Property interests, of course, are not created by the
Constitution. Rather they are created and their dimensions
41
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.
Board of Regents v. Roth, 408 U.S. 564, 577, 92 S. Ct. 2701, 2709
(1972).
Thus, as the district court in this case did, when
analyzing substantive due process claims courts are required to
turn to state and local law to determine whether the plaintiff
possessed a property interest which was abrogated by the
governmental action. The question of whether the property
interest requirement has been met is generally a matter of law
for the court to decide. RRI Realty Corp. v. Incorporated
Village of Southampton, 870 F.2d 911, 918 (2d Cir.), cert.
denied, 493 U.S. 893, 110 S. Ct. 240 (1989).
In denying the defendants their claim to entitlement to
qualified immunity, the district court first found that Acierno
had a protected property interest. The court concluded that
Acierno had a protected property interest in both the approved
record development plan and the DPUD zoning classification, and
that this property interest was independently derived from both
New Castle County and Delaware state law sources. Since the
district court addressed Acierno's property interest as arising
from these independent sources, we will follow suit in our
discussion.
The district court first determined that Acierno had a
vested right pursuant to County law. For purposes of this
analysis, the court assumed that the County Council had relied
42
upon the repealed "five-year sunset provision" of the County
Code, § 23-81(21) (repealed 1987), as the authority for its power
to void the record development plan. Assuming that provision was
properly applied, the district court concluded that it gave
Acierno "a legitimate claim of entitlement to the continuing
validity of the record plan and the zoning classification to
which it related, and to develop the [p]roperty consistent
therewith." Acierno v. Cloutier, No. 92-385, 1993 WL 215133, at
*10 (D. Del. June 9, 1993). The district court reached this
conclusion on the grounds that as a factual matter the record
plan which was voided in April, 1992 was the subdivision plan
approved and recorded in December, 1988, and that the County
Council had no discretion whatsoever to act until, at the
earliest, the expiration of the five-year sunset period.
First, the district court indicated that by reason of a
legal memorandum issued in 1986, the County Council knew that its
discretion to void a record plan did not even come into existence
until the Planning Department made such a recommendation. The
district court concluded that Acierno had a property interest
arising from a legitimate claim of absolute entitlement to
develop the property consistent with the approved record plan and
DPUD zoning classification during the five-year sunset period
beginning from the date the plan was approved in December, 1988.
In addition, the court concluded that he had a property interest
arising from a legitimate claim of entitlement to develop the
property without interference from the County after the
expiration of the five-year sunset period but before the Planning
43
Department made a formal recommendation to void the record plan.
Finally, the court determined that if the repealed five-year
sunset provision did not apply, but rather the ten-year sunset
provision contained in current County Code § 23-81(18) was
applicable, Acierno had a property interest arising from a
legitimate claim of entitlement to develop the property without
interference from the County because the current ten-year sunset
provision contains no language providing the County with
authority to void record development plans.
The defendants argue that the district court's analysis
is flawed because a landowner does not obtain a vested right to
develop property before acquiring a building permit and
commencing construction through some ground-breaking activity.
Furthermore, they contend that the district court failed to
appreciate the important distinction between Acierno's record
development plan, originally recorded in 1974, and the
subsequently filed subdivision plans which were submitted and
recorded in 1986 and 1988. The defendants argue that the five-
year sunset provision governs, and that if the five-year sunset
provision had been applied from the date the PUD record
development plan was approved in 1974, the district court would
have concluded that Acierno had no vested right to develop his
property based on County law because the County properly
exercised its discretion to void the record development plan well
after the five-year sunset period expired in 1979.
The district court also found that Acierno had acquired
a property interest under the applicable Delaware state law
44
doctrines of vested rights and equitable estoppel. The
defendants argued in the district court that Delaware follows the
majority rule of state courts and requires a developer to have
obtained a building permit and to have commenced some ground
breaking activity before a vested right to develop attaches. This
rule of vested rights, which is known as the "permit plus rule,"
was recognized by the Delaware Supreme Court:
It is generally recognized that the issuance of a
building permit does not, alone, confer any right against a
later zoning change. Otherwise stated, a permit is not per
se protected against a zoning change subsequently adopted.
The acquisition of vested rights requires more. As of the
time of the zoning change, there must have been a
substantial change of position, expenditures, or incurrence
of obligations, made lawfully and in good faith under the
permit, before the land owner becomes entitled to complete
the construction and to use the premises for a purpose
prohibited by a subsequent zoning change. This is the rule
supported by a great majority of the cases.
Shellburne, Inc. v. Roberts, 224 A.2d 250, 254 (Del. 1966).
Apparently seizing on the Delaware Supreme Court's
inclusion of the word "alone," the district court read this
passage as indicating that the vested rights rule in Delaware
does not preclude property owners from acquiring a vested right
to develop as long as there has been a substantial change of
position or expenditure, even though they have not obtained a
building permit. In support of this interpretation of the
Delaware rule, the district court turned to several cases in
which the Delaware courts had subsequently applied the vested
rights and equitable estoppel doctrines "to a broad range of
circumstances." Acierno v. Cloutier, No. 92-385, 1993 WL 215133,
at *12 (D. Del. June 9, 1993).
45
In particular, the district court focused on two
unreported cases from the lower state courts which it read as
refuting the defendants' contention that under Delaware law a
landowner has no vested right to continue development after an
adverse zoning change unless prior to the change he had obtained
a building permit and materially changed his position in reliance
thereon. See Wilmington Materials, Inc. v. Town of Middleton,
Civ. A. No. 10392, 1988 WL 135507, at *6-9 (Del. Ch. Dec. 16,
1988) (relying on the equitable estoppel and vested rights
doctrines, the court enjoined town from enforcing a zoning
amendment to prevent the development of a property even though no
permit had been issued); New Castle County v. Mitchell, Civ. A.
No. 6231, 1981 WL 15144, at *3-7 (Del. Ch. Nov. 25, 1981)
(because property owner had begun renovations to make his
property suitable for an adult entertainment center and had
applied for a building permit before the planned location was
rezoned to a classification in which such uses were not allowed,
the court determined that the property owner had acquired a
vested right and that the principle of equitable estoppel
entitled the plaintiff to continue his business at that
location).
The district court then discussed an unpublished
criminal decision in order to refute the defendants' claim that
the above unpublished cases are inconsistent with Shellburne and
other relevant Delaware Supreme Court precedent. See State v.
Raley, Cr. A. No. S90-07-0002, 1991 WL 18114 (Del. Super. Ct.
Feb. 8, 1991) (the state had charged the defendant with violating
46
certain State of Delaware Marina Facility Regulations enacted
after he received an administrative permit; citing Wilmington
Materials and Mitchell, the court concluded that the vested
rights doctrine in Delaware had not given the defendant a
constitutional right to develop the marine facility as planned
under the prior regulations), aff'd without opinion, 604 A.2d 418(Del. 1991).
The defendants argue on appeal that the common law rule
of vested rights set forth in Shellburne, the "permit plus" rule,
is the law of Delaware and a majority of other states. While a
minority of jurisdictions confer a vested right at the time
application for a building permit is made, a majority of states
have adopted the view that a developer must possess a building
permit and make a substantial change in position or expenditures,
or incur substantial obligations in reliance thereon, in order
for rights to vest. 4 Arden H. Rathkopf et al., Rathkopf's The
Law of Zoning and Planning § 50.03, at 50-12, 50-25 (4th ed.
1975). Moreover, in some states specific statutes, regulations,
or zoning ordinances themselves confer rights upon developers
already engaged in developing their property to remain exempt
from zoning code or regulations changes for a period of time and
to acquire vested rights by subsequent action. Id. § 50.02, at
50-5 to -9.
The defendants further contend that the "permit plus"
rule adopted by the Delaware Supreme Court in Shellburne has been
reaffirmed by that court and several lower state courts. See
Mayor of New Castle v. Rollins Outdoor Advertising, Inc., 475
47
A.2d 355, 360 (Del. 1984) (en banc) (In Shellburne "we held that
a property owner has no vested right in a zoning classification,
and that a building permit does not, per se, confer any right
against a later zoning change. But we ruled that under certain
circumstances, such as where an owner had made a substantial
change of position or a substantial expenditure, a vested right
arises from good faith reliance upon a building permit."); Miller
v. Board of Adjustment, 521 A.2d 642, 647 (Del. Super. Ct. 1986)
(vested right requires a permit plus a change of position);
Willdel Realty, Inc. v. New Castle County, 270 A.2d 174, 178
(Del. Ch. 1970), aff'd, 281 A.2d 612 (Del. 1971); Barrows v. City
of Lewes, Civ. A. No. 83C-MR 32, slip op. at 3 (Del. Super. Ct.
Mar. 27, 1985) ("The issuance of a building permit is the first
prerequisite of such a [vested rights] claim based on financial
detriment. A fortiori, when a building permit is not issued,
indeed, when an application for such a permit is not made,
plaintiff has no right, vested or otherwise, to construct
anything on his property."). The defendants argue that the
district court was obliged to follow the majority vested rights
rule of "permit plus" as articulated by the highest court in
Delaware and not as stated in unreported lower court decisions
which are to the contrary. See Colantuno v. Aetna Ins. Co., 980
F.2d 908, 909 (3d Cir. 1992) ("[W]hen federal courts are required
to interpret or apply state law, we consider and accept the
decisions of the state's highest court as the ultimate authority
of state law.").
48
The defendants characterize the district court's
holding as improperly recognizing that once a property owner has
record development and subdivision plans approved, the
municipality is estopped from enacting any zoning changes which
would abrogate the developer's vested rights even in the absence
of any construction activity or other detrimental reliance.
According to the defendants, recognition of such a vested rights
doctrine is contrary to Delaware law and other reported land use
decisions. See L.M. Everhart Constr., Inc. v. Jefferson County
Planning Comm'n, 2 F.3d 48, 52 (4th Cir. 1993). In L.M. Everhart
Construction, the plaintiff argued that Planning Commission
approval of a subdivision plat created an absolute vested right
to develop the parcel as approved. Rejecting this argument, the
court stated that it was "tantamount to an assertion that, once
approved, a subdivision plat is exempt from all future zoning and
subdivision regulations. We can find no court that has adopted
such a broad conception of vested rights." Id.0
Finally, the defendants also attack the district
court's reliance on the doctrine of equitable estoppel for its
finding that Acierno had a vested right to develop his property
0
The defendants also argue that the district court's
interpretation of the doctrine of vested rights would obviate the
need for a statutory provision enacted by New Castle County which
addresses the rights of developers at the subdivision approval
stage. Under County Code § 23-6, the approval of a subdivision
plan protects the planned development against subsequent zoning
changes for a period of three years. New Castle County, Del.,
Code § 23-6. The ordinance voiding Acierno's record development
plan was enacted in April, 1992, more than three years after the
most recent subdivision plan for the property was approved and
filed in December, 1988.
49
as zoned. They contend that an equitable estoppel claim cannot
form the basis for a legitimate claim of entitlement so as to
support the existence of a property right as required in a § 1983
substantive due process action. In Biser v. Town of Bel Air, 991
F.2d 100 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, __ U.S. __, 114 S. Ct. 182(1993), the Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit addressed
whether a state court order of equity estopping a municipality
from denying a special exception from a zoning ordinance
represented a legal claim of entitlement. The Biser court
rejected the plaintiff's argument that a state court order based
on equitable estoppel could create a state-law property interest:
In order to justify substantive due process protection, the
legal right to a permit must exist before the local agency
denies the permit application--the claim of entitlement must
come from "an existing legislative or administrative
standard." Dean Tarry Corp. v. Friedlander, 826 F.2d 210,
213 (2d Cir. 1987) (emphasis added). Equitable estoppel
does not recognize a pre-existing legal right; rather,
estoppel bars a defendant from asserting a legal right that
it would otherwise be entitled to enforce, based on that
party's conduct.
991 F.2d at 104.
What the above discussion concerning the district
court's decision and the defendants' arguments on appeal
demonstrates to us is that the vested rights law of both New
Castle County and the State of Delaware at the time the County
Council enacted Ordinance 91-190 was subject to considerable
uncertainty and differing interpretations. While we decline to
take a position as to whether the district court's prediction of
what the Delaware Supreme Court would hold concerning vested
rights, the "permit plus" rule, and equitable estoppel is correct
50
as a matter of law, we do not believe that Acierno's property
interest was "clearly established" under New Castle County and
Delaware law at the time Ordinance 91-190 was enacted in 1992.
Therefore, even if we were to conclude that the Delaware courts
would agree substantially with the district court's analysis of
vested rights, Acierno's property interest, if any existed, was
not so "clearly established" as to strip the former members of
the County Council and Mitchell of their qualified immunity
defenses.
In Anderson v. Creighton, the Supreme Court articulated
the "clearly established" standard:
The contours of the [constitutional] right must be
sufficiently clear that a reasonable official would
understand that what he is doing violates that right. This
is not to say that an official action is protected by
qualified immunity unless the very action in question has
previously been held unlawful, but it is to say that in the
light of pre-existing law the unlawfulness must be apparent.
483 U.S. 635, 640, 107 S. Ct. 3034, 3039 (1987) (citations
omitted). We further clarified that this qualified immunity
question involves two governing inquiries:
First, in order for the governing law to be sufficiently
well established for immunity to be denied, it is not
necessary that there have been a previous precedent directly
in point. . . . The ultimate issue is whether, despite the
absence of a case applying established principles to the
same facts, reasonable officials in the defendants' position
at the relevant time could have believed, in light of what
was in the decided case law, that their conduct would be
lawful. Second, even where the officials clearly should
have been aware of the governing legal principles, they are
nevertheless entitled to immunity if based on the
information available to them they could have believed their
conduct would be consistent with those principles.
51
Good v. Dauphin County Social Servs. for Children and Youth, 891
F.2d 1087, 1092 (3d Cir. 1989).0
Applying this test in the present case, we need go no
further than the first inquiry because we believe that reasonable
county officials in Delaware charged with legislating and
enforcing the New Castle County zoning scheme in 1992 could have
believed that their action of voiding Acierno's record
development plan was lawful. We come to this conclusion for
several reasons.
First, we agree with the defendants that the highest
court in Delaware has provided no clearer discussion of the
vested rights doctrine since Shellburne, Inc. v. Roberts, and
that case adopts the restrictive, majority rule that vested
rights do not attach without a "permit plus."0 The Delaware
Supreme Court has subsequently reaffirmed the "permit plus" rule.
See Rollins Outdoor Advertising, 475 A.2d at 360. Furthermore,
published decisions of lower state courts in Delaware are to the
same effect. E.g., Miller, 521 A.2d at 647; Shellburne, Inc. v.
Conner, 315 A.2d 620, 622 (Del. Ch. 1974), aff'd, 336 A.2d 568(Del. 1975). Thus, Mitchell and the former members of the County
0
Thus, the doctrine of qualified immunity protects the actions of
municipal officials except when they act in a "plainly
incompetent" manner or when they "knowingly violate the law."
Malley v. Briggs, 475 U.S. 335, 341, 106 S. Ct. 1092, 1096
(1986); see also Abdul-Akbar v. Watson, 4 F.3d 195, 205 (3d Cir.
1993); Schrob v. Catterson, 948 F.2d 1402, 1421 (3d Cir. 1991).
0
Moreover, the case apparently downplays the possibility that
vested rights can attach solely through detrimental reliance,
absent obtaining a building permit: "The plaintiff concedes that
a property owner has no vested right in a zoning classification.
This rule is not changed by financial detriment." Shellburne,
Inc., 224 A.2d at 254 (emphasis added).
52
Council reasonably could have believed they were lawfully acting
to void Acierno's record development plan because he did not have
a vested right to develop without first obtaining a building
permit.
Second, the district court's analysis ultimately rests
on a belief that the law of vested rights in Delaware has evolved
beyond the "permit plus" rule and now involves a focus on whether
the property owner suffered sufficient substantial reliance to
have development rights vest. Even though the district court's
conclusion was wholly derived from unpublished decisions, we
believe that if the Delaware law has truly developed in this
manner, the discretionary aspect of the determination of whether
rights have vested supports our conclusion that reasonable zoning
officials could have believed that enactment of the voiding
ordinance was a lawful action. We also note that in the very
case the district court relied upon to conclude the Delaware law
had developed in this manner, State v. Raley, Cr. A. No. S90-07-
0002, 1991 WL 18114 (Del. Super. Ct. Feb. 8, 1991), the property
owner had already obtained a permit, which significantly
undermines the court's reliance on this case as a source of
authority for its reading of the law.
Third, the complex nature of the body of law which
underlies the vested rights doctrine leads us to conclude that,
in certain circumstances, even municipal officials who act in an
unlawful manner may have reasonably believed they were acting
lawfully. Commentators have recognized that the subject of
vested rights
53
is one of the most troublesome areas of land use regulation
. . . . Its solution has required the reconciliation of the
doctrine of separation of powers with the constitutional
requirements of substantive due process, a balancing of
interests of the public as a whole and those of the
individual property owners, and, in many cases, the element
of good faith and bad faith and the resort to equity and
equitable principles.
4 Rathkopf, supra, § 50.01, at 50-2. When making land use
decisions which involve the rezoning of a developer's property,
local officials must analyze this complex body of law in order to
ascertain whether a particular action will clearly abrogate a
vested right the developer has acquired. The doctrine of
qualified immunity is designed to protect reasonable officials in
the exercise of their duties, which in the case of local
legislators and administrators charged with making land use and
zoning decisions often involves interpreting complicated issues
of state and county law.
Therefore, we hold that under the vested rights
doctrine as recognized in Delaware, Acierno's property interest,
if any in fact existed, was not so clearly established as to
defeat the former members of the County Council and Mitchell of
their claims to qualified immunity for their actions leading to
the enactment of Ordinance 91-190. In addition, we also conclude
that the law of equitable estoppel cannot provide the basis for a
property interest which supports a substantive due process claim
under § 1983 in federal court. Any claim of entitlement must
derive from an existing legislative or administrative standard.
Biser, 991 F.2d at 104. Although Acierno might be able to
proceed directly against the County under a theory of equitable
54
estoppel in order to attack the validity of the rezoning process,
it does not support his damage claim brought pursuant to § 1983
in federal court. Finally, without undertaking a complete
analysis of whether Acierno might prevail in attacking the
validity of Ordinance 91-190 because the County Council may have
relied on an unadopted ordinance as the source for its authority,
County law cannot provide the basis for vitiating the defendants'
entitlement to qualified immunity because the issue was not
settled under County law at the time they acted.0
V.
In sum, we will dismiss the appeal filed by the members
of the County Council insofar as it involves the present members
of the County Council from whom plaintiff Acierno seeks
prospective injunctive relief. With respect to the former
members of the County Council, the order of the district court
denying their motion for summary judgment on legislative immunity
and qualified immunity grounds will be reversed. The former
0
With respect to this issue we note that we have found no
reported state or federal cases which construe the DPUD ordinance
provisions at issue in this case. We also note that the district
court did not conclude that the five-year sunset provision was
not applicable; it merely concluded that the County Council
relied on an unadopted ordinance in voiding Acierno's record
development plan. Our review of this issue leads us to conclude
that even if the County Council did rely on an unadopted
ordinance, reliance on the appropriate ordinance would have
resulted in the same result--application of the five-year sunset
provision which allows a record plan to be voided upon the
recommendation of the Department of Planning. We reject any
indication in the district court's opinion supporting the
principle that the unknowing reliance on unadopted legislation as
authority for an action should result in a per se denial of the
qualified immunity defense.
55
members of the County Council are entitled to legislative
immunity for their action rezoning Acierno's property by enacting
Substitute No. 1 to Ordinance 92-119. They are entitled to
qualified immunity for voiding Acierno's record development and
subdivision plans by enacting Ordinance 91-190. Finally, the
order of the district court denying First Assistant County
Attorney Mitchell's motion to dismiss on qualified immunity
grounds also will be reversed.
56