RESPONDENT: Edwin David
LOCATION: United States District Court, C.D. California
DOCKET NO.: 02-1212
DECIDED BY: Rehnquist Court (1986-2005)
LOWER COURT: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
CITATION: 538 US 715 (2003)
DECIDED: May 19, 2003
GRANTED: May 19, 2003
Facts of the case
On August 13, 1998, Edwin David’s car was towed because he was improperly parked in a spot where parking was prohibited. He claimed he could not see the “no parking” sign because there were trees blocking it from view. David paid the fees to recover his car, but he also submitted a request for a hearing to challenge the ticket and recover his money. The hearing was held 27 days after the car was towed, and David’s claim was dismissed. David then sued the City of Los Angeles under 42 U.S.C. 1983 and claimed that the 27-day wait for the hearing denied him due process under the law as guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment. The district court granted summary judgment for the City, but the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed and held that the Due Process Clause required that the city hold a hearing at least within five days.
Does a 27-day delay before a hearing violate the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment by denying an individual the opportunity to be heard “at a meaningful time and in an meaningful manner”?