David Shoemaker v. City of Howell
795 F.3d 553
| 6th Cir. | 2015Background
- Shoemaker owned a corner house in Howell, MI; the city relandscaped the curb strip (removed his tree, planted saplings) and he stopped mowing that strip in protest.
- City Code §622.02 prohibits vegetation over 8 inches on lots and adjacent curb strips; violations are municipal civil infractions subject to fines and contractor-removal fees that can become liens.
- From 2010–2011 Code Officer Donahue issued multiple door-hanger notices and mailed Notices of Ordinance Violation; city hired a contractor twice to mow the curb strip and charged Shoemaker a total of $600 (fees + fines), later collected via property tax when he sold the house.
- Shoemaker sued in federal court alleging violations of procedural and substantive due process; district court granted summary judgment for Shoemaker on both claims.
- Sixth Circuit reversed: held the City provided constitutionally sufficient notice/process under Mathews and that no substantive due process violation occurred because Shoemaker retained a property interest and the ordinance is rationally related to legitimate objectives.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Procedural due process: Was notice and opportunity to be heard adequate before deprivation of $600? | Shoemaker: notices omitted how to challenge charges; he was denied meaningful pre-deprivation process and could not contest the obligation before a lien was placed. | City: Shoemaker received multiple actual notices (door-hangers, letters, phone contact); municipal and state post-deprivation procedures (including tax dispute and special-assessment hearings) and the Mathews factors render additional process unnecessary. | Court: Reversed district court — notice was reasonably calculated to inform Shoemaker; Mathews factors (small interest, low error risk, limited marginal value of more process, government burden) favor City; procedural due process satisfied. |
| Substantive due process: Did ordering Shoemaker to maintain the curb strip (allegedly City-owned) violate substantive due process? | Shoemaker: City asserted ownership earlier (when re-landscaping) then required him to maintain it, making enforcement arbitrary and capricious; the application lacked rational basis on these facts. | City: Under Michigan law property interests are split (public easement/nominal title vs. homeowner’s reversionary and use rights); Shoemaker retained a shared ownership/de facto use and burden is rationally related to safety, aesthetics, rodent control, property values. | Court: No fundamental right implicated; rational-basis review applies and is satisfied. Ordinance enforcement here did not violate substantive due process. |
Key Cases Cited
- Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319 (procedural due process balancing test)
- Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co., 339 U.S. 306 (notice must be reasonably calculated to inform interested parties)
- Goldberg v. Kelly, 397 U.S. 254 (importance of predeprivation hearings for substantial entitlements)
- Baum Family Trust v. Babel, 488 Mich. 136, 793 N.W.2d 633 (Michigan law on public rights-of-way and fee/nominal title)
- Rowe v. City of Elyria, 38 Fed.Appx. 277 (upholding grass-mowing ordinance under rational-basis review)
- Silvernail v. County of Kent, 385 F.3d 601 (assessing property interest magnitude and process required)