Rita Johnson v. City of Saginaw, 980 F.3d 497

Background

On May 5–6, 2017, a large birthday party at Rita Johnson’s restaurant escalated into a gunfight; police investigated it as gang-related and found shell casings including one at the café doorway.
Saginaw Chief Inspector John Stemple, relying on the Michigan Building Code, ordered city utility staff to shut off water to Johnson’s building that evening; utility inspector Jason Cabello executed the shutoff without giving Johnson notice or a hearing specific to the water suspension.
The City issued a separate show-cause notice suspending Johnson’s business license and held a hearing three days later; the water shutoff was not identified in the notice and was only mentioned once at the hearing by Johnson.
The building remained without potable water for roughly five months until Johnson’s attorney requested restoration; Johnson alleges significant business losses and property damage.
Johnson sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for violations of procedural and substantive due process; the district court denied qualified immunity to Stemple and Cabello and granted Johnson partial summary judgment (except as to the City).
The Sixth Circuit: affirmed denial of qualified immunity on the procedural due process claim, reversed denial of qualified immunity on the substantive due process claim, and remanded.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Procedural due process for water shutoff	Johnson: water is a protected property interest; she was deprived without notice or a meaningful pre‑deprivation hearing	Stemple/Cabello: emergency justified immediate shutoff; post‑deprivation hearing and state remedies suffice (Parratt)	Court: pre‑deprivation process was required here; deprivation violated procedural due process; denial of qualified immunity on this claim affirmed
Applicability of Parratt doctrine	Johnson: deprivation was authorized, not random/unauthorized, and pre‑deprivation process was practicable	Defendants: shutoff was emergency/random and post remedies adequate, so Parratt bars § 1983 claim	Court: Parratt inapplicable because the shutoff followed an established practice and pre‑deprivation process was feasible
Substantive due process (rationality/arbitrariness)	Johnson: shutoff was arbitrary/unreasonable (no rational relation to public safety, redundant after license suspension; failure to restore for months)	Defendants: Building Code authorized disconnection in emergencies; action rationally related to public safety	Court: a reasonable jury could find arbitrariness, but existing precedent did not make unlawfulness clearly established; qualified immunity granted on substantive claim
Qualified immunity / clearly established law	Johnson: law clearly established that utility cutoffs require pre‑deprivation process and arbitrary cutoffs violate due process	Defendants: no controlling precedent made their emergency shutoff clearly unlawful	Held: procedural‑due‑process right to notice/hearing was clearly established (no immunity); substantive‑due‑process violation was not clearly established (immunity granted)

Key Cases Cited

Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319 (procedural due process balancing test)
Parratt v. Taylor, 451 U.S. 527 (post‑deprivation remedy doctrine for random/unauthorized deprivations)
Zinermon v. Burch, 494 U.S. 113 (limits Parratt where deprivation is authorized by state)
Memphis Light, Gas & Water Div. v. Craft, 436 U.S. 1 (utility cutoff requires process; cessation of essential services is a significant deprivation)
Johnson v. Morales, 946 F.3d 911 (6th Cir.) (prior Sixth Circuit decision finding license‑suspension claim viable and informing analysis)
Daily Servs., LLC v. Valentino, 756 F.3d 893 (6th Cir.) (Parratt‑analysis framework and when pre‑deprivation process is required)
Quigley v. Tuong Vinh Thai, 707 F.3d 675 (6th Cir.) (standard for qualified‑immunity interlocutory appeals)
Myers v. City of Alcoa, 752 F.2d 196 (6th Cir.) (utility service recognized as protected property interest)