Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-05-01131/USCOURTS-ca8-05-01131-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 

---

1

The Honorable G. Thomas Eisele, United States District Judge for the Eastern

District of Arkansas.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 05-1131

___________

Jason Randal French, *

*

Appellant, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* Eastern District of Arkansas.

Koch’s Body Shop, *

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Appellee. *

___________

Submitted: February 2, 2006 

Filed: February 6, 2006

___________

Before RILEY, MAGILL, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Jason French appeals the district court’s1

 adverse grant of summary judgment

in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action against Koch’s Body Shop (KBS). We affirm.

In June 2001, French purchased a car from his parents and shortly thereafter left

it on the side of the road on jacks while he tried to obtain the parts to fix it. In

French’s absence, a Conway County, Arkansas, deputy determined that the car was

unattended and within three feet of the roadway, and instructed KBS to tow the car to

its shop. KBS sent notice of the towing to French’s parents, the title holders of record,

Appellate Case: 05-1131 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/06/2006 Entry ID: 2006117
-2-

notifying them of the location of the car and how to recover it pursuant to Arkansas

law. French later went to KBS to retrieve the car, and found that significant damage

had been done to it. French claimed that KBS’s removal of the car without preremoval notification, and its alleged destruction of the car, violated his Fifth and

Fourteenth Amendment due process rights.

We review de novo the district court’s grant of summary judgment, viewing the

record in a light most favorable to French. See Kasper v. Federated Mut. Ins. Co., 425

F.3d 496, 502 (8th Cir. 2005). Assuming, as the district court did, that KBS’s actions

constituted state action, failure to provide French with pre-seizure notice or hearing

did not violate his procedural due process rights. See City of Los Angeles v. David,

538 U.S. 715, 719 (2003) (per curiam) (pre-deprivation hearing on decision to tow is

impossible if city is to be able to enforce parking rules). Rather, procedural due

process was satisfied by post-removal notice to the title holder of record and a

meaningful opportunity to challenge the decision to tow the car. See Mullane v. Cent.

Hanover Bank & Trust, 339 U.S. 306, 314, 319 (1950) (notice is sufficient to satisfy

due process if reasonably calculated under circumstances to apprise interested parties

and give them opportunity to present objections; mails recognized as efficient and

inexpensive means of communication); Muhammed v. Routh Wrecker Serv., 14 F.3d

24, 25-26 (8th Cir. 1994) (per curiam) (due process claim failed where towing

company fulfilled its duties under Arkansas law by mailing notice of towing to last

registered owner of vehicle, even though actual owner did not receive notice); Propert

v. District of Columbia, 948 F.2d 1327, 1332-33 (D.C. Cir. 1991) (owners of towed

vehicles are entitled to post-deprivation notice and hearing); see also Ark. Code Ann.

§ 27-50-1207(e)(1), (f)(1) (2001) (describing right of owner of towed car to seek

review of removal).

After careful consideration, we reject French’s remaining arguments on appeal.

Accordingly, we affirm.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 05-1131 Page: 2 Date Filed: 02/06/2006 Entry ID: 2006117