Opinion ID: 2982964
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Refusal to Let Mother Make a Claim and Post Bond

Text: Because Langston anticipated he would be in jail during the 20-day limitations period, he asked his mother to file a claim and post the bond.17 Langston alleges that unidentified Redford officers violated his due process rights when they refused to allow his mother to make a claim and post a bond on his behalf. Redford does not deny that this encounter occurred, but claims not to have any record of Ms. Langston’s visit. Redford further argues that Ms. Langston’s failed attempt to file a claim had no impact on the forfeiture because she attempted to file the claim after the 20-day statutory period had passed, at which point the property was already administratively forfeited. The record presents a question of fact regarding the timeframe of Ms. 17 The district court opined that “it is not clear that Langston’s mother could claim any interest in the property that would support filing a clam [sic] and bond on her own.” However, it is not clear why this would be the case, as the claim was Langston’s, not his mother’s. -20- No. 14-1664, Langston v. Charter Township of Redford, et al. Langston’s attempt to file the claim. Langston argues that his mother’s deposition testimony demonstrates that she could not remember the specific dates. Further, Langston asserts that he told his mother that he would ask someone else to file the claim to ensure that a challenge was made before the 20-day period expired. In his deposition, Langston also testified that he discussed the forfeiture notice with his court-appointed counsel and his grandparents, and the attorney told him that the Redford police “were trying to conceal the property until the 20 days had expired.” Although Langston does not provide a specific timeline, he argues that his testimony supports that his mother attempted to make the claim within the 20 days. In addition, regarding the sufficiency of Ms. Langston’s effort to contest the forfeiture, she testified that at the very least, she identified whose property she was there to retrieve. A reasonable jury could conclude from Langston’s testimony that his mother was confused about the timing and that she went to the police station and attempted to file a claim of interest within the 20-day period. Redford’s alleged refusal to accept the claim and bond on Langston’s behalf raises a question of material fact as to whether Langston was deprived of due process. Under these facts, a reasonable jury could find that Langston (1) “had a life, liberty, or property interest protected by the Due Process Clause; (2) [] was deprived of this protected interest; and (3) the state did not afford him adequate procedural rights prior to depriving him of the property interest.” EJS Properties, LLC, 698 F.3d at 855 (citation omitted). Further, a reasonable jury could find that Redford is liable based on Officer Gillman’s testimony that Redford no longer accepted claims and bonds at the police station, despite the notice’s direction to file claims there, and that officers would not know to instruct the claimant to go to the prosecutor’s office instead. Redford responds that this practice does not “deprive claimants of a meaningful opportunity to be heard” and implies that it is appropriate because the -21- No. 14-1664, Langston v. Charter Township of Redford, et al. Wayne County prosecutor is “the office to which the claim and bond would ultimately be transferred for the purpose of instituting forfeiture proceedings.” However, if, as is alleged here and testified to by Officer Gillman and Ms. Langston, officers at the station send claimants away without directing them to the prosecutor, the practice could interfere with a claimant’s due process rights by depriving the claimant of an opportunity to file a timely claim. Therefore, we reverse summary judgment for Redford on Langston’s claim based on the refusal to accept the filing of a claim of interest.