Greene v. Lindsey

456 U.S. 444 (1982) E c09247JONES V. FLOWERS 547 U.S. 220 (2006)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

Appellees Lindsey, Hodgens, and Ray are tenants in a Louisville, Ky., housing project. Appellants are the Sheriff of Jefferson County, and certain unnamed Deputy Sheriffs charged with responsibility for serving process in forcible entry and detainer actions. The Housing Authority of Louisville initiated detainer actions against each of appellees, seeking repossession of their apartments. Service of process was made pursuant to Ky. Rev. Stat. 454.030 (1975), which states: 'If the officer directed to serve notice on the defendant in forcible entry or detainer proceedings cannot find the defendant on the premises mentioned in the writ, he may explain and leave a copy of the notice with any member of the defendant's family thereon over sixteen (16) years of age, and if no such person is found he may serve the notice by posting a copy thereof in a conspicuous place on the premises. The notice shall state the time and place of meeting of the court.' The deputies posted the notices on the doors of each of the apartments. Appellees claim never to have seen these posted summonses. They did not learn of the suits until after the time for appeal had lapsed. They filed a class action in the United States District Court for the Western District of Kentucky, seeking declaratory and injunctive relief under 42 U.S.C. 1983. They claimed that this notice procedure did not satisfy the minimum standards of constitutionally adequate notice described in Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co., which was a violation of due process under the Fourteenth Amendment. The District Court granted judgment for appellants. Prior case law held that constructive notice by posting on the door of a building, pursuant to the predecessor statute to 454.030, provided an adequate constitutional basis upon which to commence an eviction action, on the ground that it was reasonable for the State to presume that a notice posted on the door of the building in dispute would give the tenant actual notice in time to contest the action. The Sixth Circuit reversed the grant of summary judgment in favor of appellants and remanded the case for further proceedings. The Court of Appeals cited International Shoe Co. v. Washington, Mullane, supra, and Shaffer v. Heitner, as cases calling for a more realistic appraisal of the adequacy of process provided by the State. The uncontradicted testimony by process servers themselves that posted summonses are not infrequently removed by persons other than those served constitutes effective confirmation of the conclusion that notice by posting `is not reasonably calculated to reach those who could easily be informed by other means at hand.'' Mullane. The Supreme Court granted certiorari.