Nanette Tucker v. City of Chicago
907 F.3d 487
7th Cir.2018Background
- Tucker purchased a vacant lot in Chicago's Large Lot Program to create a community garden; an inspector (Campbell) inspected the lot on June 3, 2015 and photographed overgrown vegetation allegedly violating Chicago’s weed ordinance.
- No notice or citation was posted at the property; City mailed a citation six months later (Dec. 4, 2015) charging weeds over 10 inches and notifying Tucker of an administrative hearing.
- At the hearing Tucker (with counsel) testified she regularly maintained the lot and presented no contemporaneous measurements or photos; the city offered the inspector’s certification and two photos; the administrative law judge found for the city and imposed a $640 fine.
- Tucker paid the fine under protest, filed a § 1983 putative class action against the inspector (individual capacity) and the City (Monell and failure-to-train), alleging (1) six-month delay violated procedural due process and (2) the City misinterprets the ordinance (misenforcement).
- The district court dismissed the amended complaint under Rule 12(b)(6) for failure to plausibly allege a due process violation; Tucker appealed and the Seventh Circuit affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does a six-month delay between inspection and mailed citation violate procedural due process? | Tucker: Delay deprived her of ability to present contemporaneous measurements/photos and thus caused prejudice making hearing inadequate. | City: Tucker received notice and a full pre-deprivation hearing with counsel and opportunity to present evidence; delay alone does not show actual and substantial prejudice. | No — delay alone insufficient; Tucker failed to allege actual and substantial prejudice and received constitutionally adequate procedures. |
| Is post-deprivation/state-court review irrelevant because this was not a "random and unauthorized" act? | Tucker: Reliance on Parratt/Zinermon to bar consideration of state remedies because those cases limit use of post-deprivation remedies. | City: Availability of administrative hearing and judicial review bears on adequacy of process; post-deprivation remedies are relevant even when not "random and unauthorized." | Court: Post-deprivation/judicial review is relevant to due process adequacy; district court properly considered Tucker’s state appeal rights. |
| Does alleged misinterpretation/misenforcement of the ordinance (measuring any weeds >10" vs. "average height") state a federal due process claim? | Tucker: City policy instructs inspectors to find any weeds >10", contrary to ordinance text requiring "average height" over 10" — a systemic misenforcement. | City: Interpretation/enforcement of local law is a state-law matter; errors in applying municipal ordinances do not alone implicate the Constitution. | No — alleged misinterpretation is a state-law issue and not a federal due process violation; Tucker should pursue state-law remedies. |
| Is failure-to-train against the City viable independent of underlying due process theories? | Tucker: City’s training/policy led to misenforcement, supporting Monell failure-to-train claim. | City: Failure-to-train claim depends on underlying constitutional violation; absent a plausible due process violation, claim fails. | No — claim not independently viable because underlying due process claims were inadequately pleaded. |
Key Cases Cited
- Zinermon v. Burch, 494 U.S. 113 (constitutional adequacy of pre- vs post-deprivation procedures)
- Parratt v. Taylor, 451 U.S. 527 (post-deprivation remedies may suffice for random, unauthorized deprivations)
- Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319 (balancing test for procedural due process)
- United States v. Lovasco, 431 U.S. 783 (due process protects against oppressive prosecutorial delay)
- Swarthout v. Cooke, 562 U.S. 216 (federal due process does not guarantee correct application of state law)
- Kompare v. Stein, 801 F.2d 883 (7th Cir.) (errors in application of municipal ordinances do not automatically give rise to § 1983 due process claims)
- Simmons v. Gillespie, 712 F.3d 1041 (7th Cir.) (plaintiff cannot spurn available state remedies and assert federal due process violation absent inadequacy of those remedies)