Gardner v. Evans, 811 F.3d 843

Seven tenants (with William Gardner) were evicted in Lansing, MI after code inspections tied to drug investigations; inspectors issued statutory "red-tag" eviction forms.
Each red-tag complied with Lansing Housing & Premises Code §1460.07 but omitted any explanation of the post-deprivation administrative appeals process set out in §1460.12.
Because they did not know of the 20-day appeal requirement, none of the tenants filed administrative appeals and thereby waived administrative review, leaving only judicial remedies.
Tenants sued, claiming due process violations for inadequate notice; inspectors raised qualified immunity.
The district court denied qualified immunity, relying on Sixth Circuit precedent (Flatford) requiring direct notice of review rights; the Sixth Circuit panel reviewed that denial de novo.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether notice (red-tags) violated procedural due process by failing to inform tenants of appeal rights	Tenants: Flatford requires direct, clear notice of post-deprivation administrative-review procedures	Inspectors: phone number and offer to answer questions plus publicly available code were sufficient notice (Silvemail; West Covina)	Court assumed, without deciding, possible constitutional infirmity but resolved case on qualified immunity grounds
Whether the right to specific notice of appeals was clearly established	Tenants: Flatford clearly required explicit notice to tenants of appeal procedures	Inspectors: Flatford concerned who gets notice, not the required specificity; precedents permit generalized notice	Held: Not clearly established—Flatford did not mandate the particularity tenants urged
Whether a reasonable official would have known issuing the red-tags violated the right	Tenants: inspectors should have known under Flatford that tenants needed explicit guidance on appeals	Inspectors: mixed precedent (Silvemail, West Covina, Grayden) made unlawfulness non-apparent	Held: A reasonable official could have believed their conduct lawful; qualified immunity applies
Remedy on appeal	Tenants: affirm district court denial of qualified immunity	Inspectors: reverse denial and grant immunity	Held: Reversed district court and remanded for proceedings consistent with opinion

J.C. Flatford v. City of Monroe, 17 F.3d 162 (6th Cir. 1994) (tenants must receive the same notice afforded landlords; focus on who received notice)
Silvemail v. County of Kent, 385 F.3d 601 (6th Cir. 2004) (notice including phone number and offer to answer questions can be reasonably calculated to inform tenants)
City of West Covina v. Perkins, 525 U.S. 234 (1999) (officers need not provide individualized notice of procedures when remedies are available in publicly accessible sources)
Anderson v. Creighton, 483 U.S. 635 (1987) (qualified-immunity standard: unlawfulness must be apparent in light of pre-existing law)
Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319 (1976) (due-process balancing test; notice and opportunity to be heard are core requirements)
Grayden v. Rhodes, 345 F.3d 1225 (11th Cir. 2003) (published city code can make officials reasonably conclude no obligation to provide individualized notice)
DiLuzio v. Village of Yorkville, 796 F.3d 604 (6th Cir. 2015) (summary judgment/qualified-immunity evidentiary standard)
Thomas v. Cohen, 304 F.3d 563 (6th Cir. 2002) (de novo review of qualified-immunity denials when facts undisputed)
Quigley v. Tuong Vinh Thai, 707 F.3d 675 (6th Cir. 2013) (two-step qualified-immunity framework)