Laserfiche WebLink
however, does not create protected property interests. <br />Parratt, 451 U.S. at 529 n.l. Rather, the Court must look to <br />independent sources, such as state law, rules, .er- <br />standings to ascertain whether a protected property intereet <br />exists. id. <br />Under Minnesota law, however, plaintiffs do not have a <br />property interest in a building permit. See Jaska Co. v. <br />City of St. Paul, 309 N.W.2d 40, 44 (Minn. 1981)i Ri eg s v• <br />City of St. Paul, 62 N.W.2d 363, 373-74 (Minn. 1953). Since <br />plaintiffs do not have a protected property interest in the <br />building permit, plaintiffs cannot challenge defendants' <br />denial of the permit as arbitrary and thus in violation of <br />procedural due process. See, e.g., Parratt, 451 U.S. at 535; <br />Vruno v..Schwarzwalder, 600 F.2d 124, 129 (8th Cir. 1979). <br />Sven if defendants' failing to grant the permit violated <br />state law, plaintiffs cannot challenge that denial under the <br />federal constitution since no protected property interest <br />exists. Vruno, 600 F.2d at 130-31. A denial of a building <br />permit which violates only state law raises a matter of local - <br />concern and is 'properly and fully reviewable in the state <br />courts." Chiplin Enterprises v. City of Lebanon, 712 F.2d <br />1524, 1527 (lot Cir. 1983). <br />- 4 - <br />