Document: 538 U.S. 715 CITY OF LOS ANGELESv.DAVID. No. 02-1212. Supreme Court of United States. Decided May 19, 2003. Respondent David paid petitioner Los Angeles $134.50 to recover his car, which had been towed from a spot where parking was prohibited, and requested hearing the money. The held 27 days after car claim denied. He then filed 42 U. S. C. § 1983 suit, claiming that city violated due process rights by failing provide sufficiently prompt hearing. District granted summary judgment, but Ninth Circuit reversed, holding Constitution required an earlier hearing, perhaps within 48 hours towing at least 5 days. Held: Due Process Clause does not prohibit agency imposing kind procedural delay experienced here when hearings consider claims such as David's. three factors normally determine whether individual has received "process" finds "due" — were set forth in Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 319, 335, applied FDIC Mallen, 486 230, 242 require reversal Circuit's decision. first factor "private interest" affected official action is monetary interest work far more serious harm caused temporary deprivation job issue Mallen. second concern for accuracy also support conclusion. A 30-day presenting evidence unlikely spawn significant factual errors, nature illegally parked indicates initial errors are unlikely. third government's argues strongly city's favor. Only five percent 1,000 impound holds annually conducted hours, those involve persons who cannot afford impoundment fees. substantially administrative needs related organizing e. g., arranging officer appear. Requiring hold hearings, rather than 50, short time period would prove burdensome. Certiorari granted; 307 F. 3d 1143, reversed. ON PETITION FOR WRIT CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT APPEALS NINTH CIRCUIT. PER CURIAM. 1 On August 13, 1998, Department Transportation ordered respondent Edwin David's automobile forbidden. After paying $134.50, recovered car. David, believing trees obstructed view "no parking" sign, September 9, 1998 vehicle denied claim. 2 brought this lawsuit Federal under Rev. Stat. 1979, 1983, arguing city, federal right "due law." Amdt. 14, 1. judgment city. Appeals Circuit, vote 1, payment-recovery 1147 (2002). seeking certiorari here, runs contrary well-settled principles constitutional law. We agree. grant writ summarily reverse judgment. 3 In 335 (1976), "due": 4 "First, private will be action; second, risk erroneous through procedures used, probable value, if any, additional or substitute safeguards; finally, Government's interest, including function involved fiscal burdens requirement entail." By weighing these concerns, courts can State met "fundamental process" "the opportunity heard `at meaningful manner.'" Id., 333. (1988), considered circumstances "impairment individual's property preceded any pre-deprivation hearing." Government suspended indicted bank employee job. statute postdeprivation 30 decision 60 claimed 30- 90-day between (a) suspension (b) postsuspension Clause. recognized there "is point unjustified completing post-deprivation proceeding `would become violation.'" Ibid. It Eldridge-type reached. S., (assessing importance of, to, likelihood interim error, governmental delay). And it concluded potential decision, did violate Constitution. 243. 6 requires Eldridge factor, interest," here. consists maintaining use money fees job, typically works harm. Cf. supra, 340 (distinguishing respect benefits "not based upon financial need" welfare assistance "given on very margin subsistence"). So itself relevant lower court cases looked support. See Stypmann San Francisco, 557 2d 1338, 1342-1344 (CA9 1977). Goichman Rheuban Motors, Inc., 682 1320, 1324 1982). Indeed, loss value compensated payment. Pet. Cert. 7. 7 errors. Administrative judicial proceedings take place considerably elapsed. straightforward while they may occur, 244-245 (finding "little without basis" light grand jury indictment). 8 "Government's one necessity. points out "conducts thousand annually." 8. about involving individuals unable hours. "takes organize hearings: only so many courtrooms presiding officials; contact arrange appearance; have find cover officer's responsibilities he attends 3d, 1149 (Kozinski, J., dissenting). holding, presumably schedule instead 50 48-hour (or 5-day) limit, resources available modern police departments limitless. necessity supporting no less substantial namely, need protect integrity banking system prepare thoroughly 244. add reason denying predeprivation impossible able enforce rules important 9 conclude 27-day reflects routine needs. Our make clear issue. 10 ordered.

Category: 3