UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
for the Fifth Circuit
_____________________________________
No. 97-10004
Summary Calendar
_____________________________________
MAYFAIR DEVELOPMENT CORP.,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
VERSUS
CITY OF DALLAS,
Defendant-Appellee.
______________________________________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas
(3:95-CV-1594-H)
______________________________________________________
July 17, 1997
Before DAVIS, EMILIO M. GARZA, and STEWART, Circuit Judges
PER CURIAM:1
Mayfair appeals the district court’s order granting summary
judgment for the City of Dallas. Mayfair contends that the City
acted arbitrarily and capriciously in rejecting a development plan
submitted by Mayfair’s assignee and that the City’s rejection
violated the due process, equal protection, and takings clauses of
1
Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined
that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent
except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R.
47.5.4.
the Texas and U.S. Constitutions and 42 U.S.C. § 1983. We
disagree.
This court has explained that municipal zoning decisions are
“sustainable against a substantive due process challenge if there
exists . . . ‘any conceivable rational basis’” for the decision.
FM Properties Operating Co. v. City of Austin, 93 F.3d 167, 174
(5th Cir. 1996) (quoting Shelton v. City of College Station, 780
F.2d 475, 477 (5th Cir.) (en banc), cert. denied, 477 U.S. 905
(1986)). “Only if such government action is ‘clearly arbitrary
and unreasonable, having no substantial relation to the public
health, safety, morals, or general welfare,’ may it be declared
unconstitutional.” Id. (quoting Village of Euclid v. Ambler Realty
Co., 272 U.S. 365, 395 (1926)). Here, the City Council furnished
a number of reasons for its rejection of the development plan;
given the presumption of validity we accord such findings, we
cannot conclude that the City Council lacked a “conceivable
rational basis” for its action. Therefore, we must conclude that
Mayfair has failed to state a constitutional violation, and the
district court’s order is affirmed.
AFFIRMED.
2