Antonnette Hopkins v. The City of Bloomington
2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 24129
| 8th Cir. | 2014Background
- Hopkins, arrest for third DWI offense, vehicle towed and impounded under Minn. Stat. § 169A.63(1)(e)(1).
- She received notice of seizure and later charged with second-degree DWI.
- Hopkins sought a judicial determination under § 169A.63(9); hearing not scheduled due to subdivision 9(d) requiring prosecutorial consent.
- She did not pursue subdivision 9(a)-(h) procedures or post bond/security alternatives before criminal resolution.
- Hopkins withdrew the judicial-determination demand on Sept. 5, 2012, and pled guilty on Jan. 30, 2013.
- District court dismissed her § 1983 claims; Hopkins appeals challenging post-deprivation due process exhaustion requirement.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether exhaustion of state remedies is required for post-deprivation due-process claims under §1983. | Hopkins argues exhaustion is not required or the adequacy of remedies should be analyzed. | City argues exhaustion is required before a §1983 procedural-due-process claim is ripe. | Exhaustion required; Hopkins waived by not pursuing remedies; district court upheld dismissal. |
| Whether Hopkins exhausted available state administrative remedies before bringing the §1983 claim. | Hopkins did not exhaust available remedies. | Administrative remedies were available but not pursued. | Hopkins waived post-deprivation due-process claim by ceasing pursuit of remedies. |
| Whether the procedural due-process claim is ripe absent exhaustion under the applicable state-remedy framework. | N/A in succinct terms of appeal. | N/A in succinct terms of appeal. | Claim not ripe due to failure to exhaust remedies; dismissal proper. |
Key Cases Cited
- Patsy v. Bd. of Regents of Fla., 457 U.S. 496 (U.S. 1982) (exhaustion generally not required for §1983 unless remedy adequacy overlaps merits)
- Barry v. Barchi, 443 U.S. 55 (U.S. 1979) (exhaustion not required where adequacy of remedy is identical to merits)
- Keating v. Neb. Pub. Power Dist., 562 F.3d 923 (8th Cir. 2009) (recognizes exhaustion exception for procedural due process in some contexts)
- Wax ’n Works v. City of St. Paul, 213 F.3d 1016 (8th Cir. 2000) (requires exhaustion before post-deprivation due-process claim is ripe)
- Christiansen v. W. Branch Cmty. Sch. Dist., 674 F.3d 927 (8th Cir. 2012) (affirmed dismissal for lack of exhaustion of post-termination remedies)