## Facts

- In October 1997, two children died in Los Angeles County, and their bodies came into the custody of the Los Angeles County Coroner.
- At the time, California Government Code § 27491.47(a) permitted the coroner, during an autopsy, to remove and release corneal tissue from a body in the coroner’s custody if the coroner had “no knowledge of objection” to the removal.
- Acting under procedures adopted pursuant to that statute, the coroner removed the children’s corneas without notifying the parents and without requesting consent.
- The parents did not learn of the cornea removals until September 1999.
- The parents filed a putative class action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging deprivation of a protected property interest in possession and control of their children’s bodies and body parts without due process, in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment.
- The district court dismissed under Rule 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim, concluding the parents lacked a cognizable property interest in the remains.
- The parents appealed; the Ninth Circuit reviewed the dismissal de novo and accepted the complaint’s factual allegations as true.

## Issues

1. Whether California’s recognition of next of kin’s right to possess and control a decedent’s remains constitutes a property interest protected by the Fourteenth Amendment.
2. Whether corneal removal by the county coroner without notice to, or consent from, the parents deprived them of that property interest without due process under § 1983.
3. Whether the parents were required to exhaust post-deprivation remedies before bringing a § 1983 due process claim challenging an established practice and statutory scheme.

## Decision

- The Ninth Circuit reversed the Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal and remanded for further proceedings.
- The court held that next of kin have a constitutionally protected property interest in the bodies and body parts (including corneal tissue) of deceased family members, grounded in California law and consistent with the common-law tradition.
- The court held that removal of corneal tissue without notice and consent plausibly alleged a deprivation of that property interest without due process.
- The court held the parents were not required to exhaust post-deprivation remedies before filing suit under § 1983.

## Legal Principles

- Property interests protected by procedural due process are defined by independent sources such as state law; longstanding state-law rights of next of kin in a decedent’s remains can constitute protected “property” interests for Fourteenth Amendment purposes.
- Labeling the interest in human remains as “quasi-property” under state law does not preclude constitutional protection where the law grants enforceable rights of possession, control, and protection against unauthorized interference.
- When a state actor permanently removes tissue from a body under an established procedure that does not provide notice or a meaningful opportunity to object, a plausible claim arises for deprivation of property without due process.
- A § 1983 plaintiff generally need not exhaust state post-deprivation remedies, particularly where the alleged due process violation flows from an official policy, practice, or statutory authorization rather than a random, unauthorized act.

## Conclusion

The Ninth Circuit held that parents, as next of kin, plausibly alleged a protected property interest in their deceased children’s remains and that the coroner’s corneal removal without notice or consent stated a § 1983 procedural due process claim; dismissal was reversed and the case remanded.


Newman v. Sathyavaglswaran, 287 F.3d 786 (9th Cir. 2002)