71 F.4th 463
6th Cir.2023Background
- Wyndham Gardens in Sterling Heights lacked a required elevator backup-power system; the Michigan Elevator Safety Board ultimately required battery-lowering devices after a variance and a prior generator requirement.
- ThyssenKrupp installed and tested battery-lowering devices that were programmed to bring elevators to the ground floor; tests on Nov. 5, 2019 showed the devices worked.
- Inspector Scott McKay inspected the hotel that day, failed every elevator because they were not programmed to descend to the (exitless) basement, and sealed the elevators the same day, disabling access to most hotel floors.
- Sterling received subsequent notices of violation alleging malfunctions and sued McKay under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 asserting equal protection, takings, and due-process claims; the district court dismissed equal protection, denied relief on the other claims, and declined to decide qualified immunity.
- The Sixth Circuit reviewed de novo, held district courts must rule on qualified immunity at the pleadings stage, denied McKay immunity as to the due-process claim, and granted him immunity as to the takings claim; the court affirmed in part and reversed in part and remanded.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the district court properly deferred ruling on qualified immunity until after discovery | Sterling: courts often wait until summary judgment to decide qualified immunity | McKay: immunity questions must be resolved at earliest stage; district court must rule on a dismissal motion | District court erred; courts must decide qualified-immunity motions at the pleadings stage (de novo review) |
| Whether sealing elevators without advance notice violated procedural due process | Sterling: sealing deprived property use without pre-deprivation notice or opportunity to respond | McKay: prior inspection letters sufficed as notice or relief that post-act notices cured any due-process defect | Held for Sterling at pleading stage: allegation that McKay gave no advance notice plausibly states a due-process violation; the right to pre-deprivation notice was clearly established, so McKay is not entitled to qualified immunity |
| Whether sealing constituted a compensable regulatory taking and whether McKay is individually liable | Sterling: sealing was a taking entitling it to damages | McKay: individual liability for a Fifth Amendment takings claim was not clearly established; prior precedent suggested no individual damages liability | Held for McKay: individual liability for a regulatory taking was not clearly established in this circuit, so McKay is entitled to qualified immunity on the takings claim (district denial reversed) |
| Validity of dismissal of equal-protection claim | Sterling: alleges disparate treatment by inspector | McKay: no equal-protection violation | District court dismissal as to equal protection was affirmed (appellate decision overall affirmed in part) |
Key Cases Cited
- Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223 (2009) (qualified-immunity framework; resolve immunity early)
- Hunter v. Bryant, 502 U.S. 224 (1991) (importance of early resolution of immunity questions)
- Summers v. Leis, 368 F.3d 881 (6th Cir. 2004) (district courts cannot avoid ruling on qualified immunity)
- Courtright v. City of Battle Creek, 839 F.3d 513 (6th Cir. 2016) (pleading-stage standard for qualified immunity review)
- Cahoo v. SAS Analytics Inc., 912 F.3d 887 (6th Cir. 2019) (procedural due-process property-deprivation analysis)
- Connecticut v. Doehr, 501 U.S. 1 (1991) (any significant state taking of property implicates due process)
- Cleveland Bd. of Educ. v. Loudermill, 470 U.S. 532 (1985) (pre-deprivation hearing requirement for significant property interests)
- Viceroy v. Walton, 730 F.2d 466 (6th Cir. 1984) (questioning individual liability for Fifth Amendment takings)