Facts
- Kentucky law allowed service of process in forcible entry and detainer (eviction) actions by posting a summons “in a conspicuous place on the premises” when the defendant or an eligible family member could not be found.
- The Louisville Housing Authority filed eviction actions against tenants in a public housing project.
- Deputy sheriffs attempted service and posted the summonses on the tenants’ apartment doors.
- The tenants asserted they did not see the posted summonses and first learned of the actions after default judgments, when writs of possession issued and the time to appeal had expired.
- The tenants brought a class action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against the sheriff and deputies in their official capacities, alleging the posting method was unreliable in the project because notices were often removed before tenants saw them.
- The district court granted summary judgment for the defendants; the Sixth Circuit reversed, finding posting alone constitutionally inadequate under the circumstances.
Issues
- Whether, in a setting where door-posted notices are often removed, service of eviction process solely by posting is notice “reasonably calculated” to inform tenants of the proceeding under the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause.
Decision
- The Supreme Court affirmed the Sixth Circuit.
- As applied to the public housing project, posting a summons on an apartment door without more did not satisfy due process.
- The Court applied the standard that due process requires notice reasonably calculated, under all the circumstances, to apprise interested parties and allow an opportunity to object.
- The Court emphasized the substantial property interest at stake: continued residence in one’s home.
- Evidence that postings were “not infrequently” removed made posting unreliable in this context.
- The State’s failure to use readily available, inexpensive, more reliable methods (such as mail) supported the conclusion that the procedure was not reasonably calculated to provide notice.
- The practice provided no second attempt at personal service, and a single failed attempt did not justify reverting to an unreliable form of notice.
- The Court rejected reliance on formal “in rem” characterizations to justify notice directed effectively only at the premises.
Legal Principles
- Due process requires notice reasonably calculated, in light of known circumstances, to inform affected persons and permit them to present objections.
- The adequacy of a notice method depends on context; a method that can be acceptable generally may be unconstitutional when conditions make it systematically unreliable.
- Actual notice is not required, but the chosen procedure must be reasonably designed to reach the interested party.
- When the State knows a chosen method frequently fails and modestly burdensome, more reliable alternatives are available, due process may require additional steps beyond the failing method.
- The importance of the interest affected informs the rigor of the notice inquiry, including in eviction proceedings affecting continued possession of a home.
Conclusion
The Court held that, given repeated removal of posted notices in the public housing project and the availability of simple alternatives, serving eviction process solely by door-posting was not reasonably calculated to inform tenants and therefore violated due process as applied.