Opinion ID: 2821417
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Insufficient Process

Text: Failing to recognize that notice requires more than simply advising an affected individual that the government plans to deprive that individual of some property interest, the majority proceeds to conduct a deeply flawed analysis of what constitutes sufficient process under the circumstances presented by this case. The City made only one argument in its briefing as to why it satisfied the strictures of procedural due process. In the City’s own words: “Not only did [Shoemaker] receive actual No. 13-2535 Shoemaker v. City of Howell Page 27 notice of the violations, but he also received all of the process he was due,” because he had “an opportunity to be heard,” inasmuch as the City’s “Enforcement Officer . . . addressed his concerns and explained [the City’s position],” with respect to who should mow the berm, when Shoemaker called City Hall to complain. Appellant’s Br. at 35–36. This so-called “process,” far shy of a formal hearing, was obviously deficient for the simple reason that due process is not satisfied by the use of an adjudicative hearing or review that is conducted by the same government official who was responsible for enforcing the law that led to the deprivation in the first place. See, e.g., Goldberg v. Kelly, 397 U.S. 254, 271 (1970) (“[P]rior involvement in some aspect of a case will not necessarily bar . . . [an] official from acting as a decision maker. He should not, however, have participated in making the determination under review.”). The phone call between Shoemaker and the Enforcement Officer does not constitute the sort of process required by the Fourteenth Amendment.4 Determined to reshape the law of procedural due process, see Yang v. City of Wyoming, Mich., No. 14-1846, 2015 WL 4174760, __ F.3d __ (6th Cir. July 13, 2015) (slip op.), the majority side-steps the fatal flaw in the City’s constitutionally deficient argument. Instead of considering the City’s theory of the case, the majority turns to the amici and pretends that the primary argument raised by the amici’s brief was not waived on account of the City’s failure to make that argument itself. The position supported by the amici, however, is not properly before the Court. See Taylor v. KeyCorp, 680 F.3d 609, 615 n.6 (6th Cir. 2012) (“[The amicus] asserts that Taylor has standing to pursue her claims, even in the absence of injury, simply because defendants breached duties owed to her pursuant to ERISA. This argument, however, was not raised by the parties in their appellate briefs. Accordingly, we will not consider this issue.” (citing Cellnet Commc’ns, Inc. v. FCC, 149 F.3d 429, 443 (6th Cir. 1998)). The majority’s contention to the contrary—that “the amici simply augmented the City’s position that it did not violate Shoemaker’s procedural due process rights because sufficient procedures were in place”—is patently untrue. See Maj. Op. at 13. Framing the City’s position so broadly that it 4 The City’s reliance on Silvernail v. County of Kent, 385 F.3d 601 (6th Cir. 2004), is misplaced. In that case, the individual was not forced to seek review of a government action with the officer who had determined that enforcement was necessary in the first place. Moreover, the affected individual was provided with a phone number to call for the explicit purpose of challenging “any . . . reason why they should not be required to pay the Government Assessment Fee.” 385 F.3d at 605. The apparent purpose of providing the phone number in this case was simply to explain to the affected individual why the City was going to take the action that it was taking. No. 13-2535 Shoemaker v. City of Howell Page 28 would encompass any argument in support of finding that the City offered sufficient process, is contrary to binding precedents, defeats the purpose of the waiver rule, and expands the role of amicus curiae beyond recognition. See United States v. Michigan, 940 F.2d 143, 165 (6th Cir. 1991) (“[A]micus cannot create, extend, or enlarge issue[s].”); see also Barbara J. Fan Arsdale, 4 Am. Jur. 2d § 7 (online ed.) (last updated May 2015) (“In general, an amicus curiae must accept the case before the reviewing court as it stands on appeal, with the issues as framed by the parties. . . . where a party does not adopt an amicus curiae argument in its brief, the argument is waived on appeal.”). Notwithstanding the impropriety of considering the amici-raised argument, the provisions of the City Code highlighted by the amici provide no more bases to find that the City afforded adequate process to Shoemaker before depriving him of $600. In fact, the need to rely on the amici’s arguments in this case lays bare the fallacy of the majority’s proposition that “Shoemaker could have learned about the procedures for objecting to the allegations against him” by contacting City Hall. Maj. Op. at 8. He did contact City Hall, and the City itself was apparently unaware of any other procedures available to Shoemaker through which he could challenge the violations; the City certainly failed to advise him of any such procedures, and it also failed to apprise the Court of any such procedures in this appeal. What the amici identify, and the majority relies on, is a maze of City Code provisions that ultimately allow a taxpayer to challenge his or her tax bill. (The majority also discusses the right to challenge a special assessment, which is entirely irrelevant to this case, as the City did not utilize that procedure to deprive Shoemaker of his property.) In any regard, an individual’s right to challenge a tax lien placed against his or her home, or their right to challenge a special assessment, does not in practice (and cannot in theory) be a substitute for the right to initially challenge the purported violation that has ultimately resulted in the deprivation at issue. With respect to this case, the inadequacy of this alleged process (whereby Shoemaker could have challenged his tax bill) could not be any clearer. The bill that augmented Shoemaker’s property taxes was automatically forwarded to the bank that held his mortgage. The bank presumably increased his monthly payment to insure that his escrow account associated with the property taxes had a sufficient balance. Regardless of whether there was any monthly increase, the bank No. 13-2535 Shoemaker v. City of Howell Page 29 ultimately paid Shoemaker’s property taxes from the escrow account (including the additional $600). Shoemaker was never afforded any opportunity by the City to contest the charges. Shoemaker was unaware of the precise amount of the final bill, but he was ultimately required to ratify the City’s extortion when he tendered to the purchasers of his home the required documentation proving that there were no outstanding taxes on the property. The so-called process offered by the City’s tax dispute system is blatantly insufficient in this context.5 Pursuant to Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319 (1976), the sufficiency of process is determined by weighing (1) “the private interest that will be affected,” (2) “the risk of an erroneous deprivation through the procedures used,” (3) “the probable value, if any of additional substitute procedural safeguards,” and (4) “the [g]overnment’s interest, including the fiscal and administrative burdens” that additional process might entail. The decision to be made in this case was whether the City could force Shoemaker to mow the disputed property, not whether the City issued an accurate bill for his property taxes. Although consideration of the Matthews factors is unnecessary to resolve this case because of the manifest deficiency of the notice offered to Shoemaker and lack of any opportunity be heard in actuality, a review of those factors further illustrates both the necessity of affording sufficient process under these circumstances and the relative ease with which the City could have offered that process. Contrary to the majority’s view, being charged $600 (not to mention having one’s wellmaintained garden demolished6) is not a “relatively minor” expense for the average American.7 Nor is the risk of deprivation “minimal” simply because it is objectively ascertainable whether or not vegetation has grown to the height of eight inches. See Zilba, 924 F. Supp. 2d at 880–84 (involving a citation for parking in proximity to a fire hydrant, which was objectively defined by statute). Moreover, the risk of a wrongful deprivation is particularly great in a case such as this 5 The majority also suggests that Shoemaker was afforded sufficient post-deprivation process because eventually any quasi-judicial state action that affects individual rights can be challenged in the Michigan courts, pursuant to the Michigan Constitution. Under the majority’s view, this remedy would all but preclude a court from finding that any administrative action taken by the State, or any of its political subdivisions and the bodies therein, constituted a due process violation. 6 See supra n.2. 7 In 2012, the median weekly income for a fully-employed individual in the United States was less than $800. See U.S. Dep’t of Labor, Median Usual Weekly Earning of Full-Time Wage and Salary Workers, Bureau of Labor Statistics, tbl.1, http://www.bls.gov/news.release/wkyeng.t01.htm (last updated Apr. 21, 2015). Demonstrating just how out of touch the majority is with respect to the economic reality faced by many Americans, the majority implied that $25 and $600 are similar financial stakes, even though $600 is 24-times greater than $25. No. 13-2535 Shoemaker v. City of Howell Page 30 where the affected individual might never have an opportunity to see the bill, or contest it before payment, because it was forwarded directly to his or her mortgaging bank. And despite the majority’s insistence that additional process would be a financial drain on the City because somehow allowing people to challenge tickets issued to them “would quickly outpace the monies collected as a result of” issuing the tickets in the first place, there is absolutely no evidence in the record to support that strained and illogical position. Maj Op. at 11. Cities have not stopped issuing parking tickets (or tickets for a host of other civil infractions) simply because some people actually challenge those tickets. There is absolutely no reason to believe that there would be any meaningful increase in overhead when the infrastructure for challenging tickets based on violations of the municipal ordinances is already in place. The City’s purported process, which it apparently failed to recognize as a viable option for an individual in Shoemaker’s circumstances, is plainly insufficient to meet the strictures of due process. The notice did not apprise Shoemaker of anything, other than the City’s belief that Shoemaker should cut the grass on the disputed property or risk being charged for failing to do so; and the so-called opportunity to be heard was far too disconnected from the alleged violation to be in any way meaningful, even if Shoemaker had been paying his property taxes directly. See Mem. Light, Gas & Water Div., 436 U.S. at 22. The judgment of the district court should be affirmed because the City failed to provide sufficient process before depriving Shoemaker of his rightful property.