126 F.4th 1141
6th Cir.2025Background
- Michael and Rebecca McIntosh owned a mobile home that was condemned and demolished by the City of Madisonville, Kentucky, following complaints of mold and structural issues.
- After condemnation notice, the McIntoshes attempted repairs and sought to contest the City’s actions, repeatedly contacting city officials for clarification and a hearing.
- The City asserted structural unsafety and removed the home one month after the condemnation notice, despite the McIntoshes’ ongoing objections and their alleged lack of a meaningful process to contest the condemnation.
- The McIntoshes filed suit alleging violations of procedural and substantive due process under § 1983, and a state law trespass claim.
- The district court granted summary judgment to the City on all claims; the McIntoshes appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Procedural Due Process – Hearing | City failed to provide pre-demolition hearing as required by law. | Adequate informal opportunities existed; formal hearing unnecessary. | City failed to provide the promised hearing; reversed summary judgment on this claim. |
| Procedural Due Process – Notice | Notice was insufficiently specific and did not explain right to hearing. | Notice and municipal laws sufficiently apprised owners of rights. | Notice was sufficient; affirmed for defendant. |
| Substantive Due Process | City’s actions were arbitrary and conscience-shocking. | Conduct was valid police power action under code. | City's conduct did not shock the conscience; affirmed for defendant. |
| Jurisdiction over State Claim (Trespass) | District court should hear trespass claim. | Federal claims dismissed; court declined supplemental jurisdiction. | On remand, district court may reconsider supplemental jurisdiction. |
Key Cases Cited
- Mullane v. Cent. Hanover Bank & Tr. Co., 339 U.S. 306 (Due process requires notice and opportunity to be heard)
- Memphis Light, Gas & Water Div. v. Craft, 436 U.S. 1 (Notice must inform property owners of hearing opportunity)
- Zinermon v. Burch, 494 U.S. 113 (Some kind of hearing required before property deprivations)
- County of Sacramento v. Lewis, 523 U.S. 833 (Conscience-shocking conduct needed for substantive due process violation)
- City of West Covina v. Perkins, 525 U.S. 234 (Notice of hearing rights may arise from generally available statutes)
- Harris v. City of Akron, 20 F.3d 1396 (Building condemnation for public safety does not shock the conscience)