Luster v. Village of Ashmore

Dist. Ct. erred in dismissing plaintiff’s section 1983 action, alleging that defendant-Village denied him procedural due process by taking his home (to which he had contract for purchase) and demanding that he and his family vacate said home without giving plaintiff adequate notice and opportunity to be heard. Allegations in complaint indicated that defendant had acquired said home from titleholder for use as municipal park. While Dist. Ct. held belief that plaintiff could not proceed on instant claim because plaintiff had failed to allege that he lacked adequate post-deprivation remedy, Ct. of Appeals found that instant claim could proceed, where there was no obvious reason why defendant could not have given plaintiff advance notice and pre-deprivation hearing prior to seizing plaintiff’s home. Moreover, Ct. found that Dist. Ct.’s reliance on Parratt, 451 U.S. 527, was misplaced, where, unlike instant case, fact pattern in Parratt concerned situation where pre-deprivation hearing was impractical. As such, core principles of federal due process required some kind of hearing prior to State’s deprivation of person’s property, and plaintiff sufficiently alleged that he was injured by defendant’s failure to give adequate notice and pre-deprivation hearing, which rendered him unable to oppose transfer of his property.