The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals has affirmed a lower court’s decision granting summary judgment to the City of Pipestone, Minnesota, and its building administrator, Douglas Fortune, in a lawsuit brought by the owners of the Calumet Inn. The Inn Owners had sued, alleging that Fortune’s temporary closure of the property violated their constitutional rights under both the Fourteenth Amendment (procedural due process) and the Fifth Amendment (uncompensated regulatory taking).
The closure, which lasted from March 10 to April 30, 2020, was initiated due to numerous, long-standing safety and fire code violations at the Inn. The appellate court found that the emergency action was justified by the paramount government interest in public safety and that existing procedures offered sufficient due process.
A History of Safety Hazards
The opinion details a lengthy history of safety issues plaguing the Calumet Inn. As far back as 2017, the building presented risks, including a window falling off and dislodging a stone onto the sidewalk below. By January 2018, Building Administrator Fortune had placed the Inn on his “blighted list,” threatening closure if necessary repairs weren’t made. While repairs were eventually completed with city assistance, new issues quickly arose.
In late 2019, a deputy fire marshal identified nine fire code violations. When a fire broke out in a guest room in January 2020, the sprinkler system failed to activate, though fortunately, two children present were unharmed. The Inn failed to correct the initial violations by the February 13 deadline.
The final straw came after a March 9 follow-up inspection involving Fortune, the fire marshal, and a health inspector. They found five of the original violations unresolved, along with eight new ones. Based on these findings, Fortune issued an emergency closure order the next day, effectively “condemning” the Inn until safety issues were resolved, stating he observed hazards that “endangered life.”
Due Process Analysis: Swift Action Justified
The Inn Owners argued that Fortune’s immediate closure order violated their Fourteenth Amendment right to procedural due process, claiming they were entitled to a hearing *before* the deprivation of their property interest (the ability to operate the Inn).
The Eighth Circuit employed the three-factor balancing test from *Mathews v. Eldridge* to determine if the process afforded was constitutionally adequate. While the court assumed, for the sake of argument, that the Inn Owners possessed a protected property interest, it ultimately ruled against them on the second and third factors: the risk of erroneous deprivation and the government’s interest.
Specific Regulations and Available Appeals
The court noted that Fortune acted under the Minnesota State Building Code, which authorizes a building administrator to vacate a building if it is “structurally unsafe, not provided with adequate egress, a fire hazard, or otherwise dangerous to human life.” Citing precedent like *Hodel v. Virginia Surface Min. & Reclamation Ass’n*, the court found this language specific enough to control official action and reduce the risk of error.
Crucially, the court pointed to the multiple avenues for post-deprivation review available to the Inn Owners under Minnesota law: appeal to the City Council, appeal to the State Building Code Appeals Board, or seeking a writ of certiorari from a court.
The Inn Owners had attempted to pursue a City Council appeal but cited pandemic-related delays. However, the court stressed that state rules allow an applicant to appeal directly to the State Board if the City fails to hold a hearing within ten working days. Because the owners failed to pursue the direct state board appeal or judicial review, the court concluded they “cannot complain of a violation of procedural due process when [they have] not availed [themselves] of existing procedures.”
Public Safety Trumps Pre-Deprivation Hearing
Addressing the lack of a pre-deprivation hearing, the court emphasized the paramount nature of protecting public health and safety. The ruling relied on the principle that when swift action is necessary, post-deprivation review satisfies due process requirements.
Fortune’s decision was based on observable facts: the Inn’s history of structural risks, a recent fire where the sprinkler system failed, and the findings from the March 9 inspection detailing numerous unresolved and new fire hazards. The court gave deference to Fortune’s judgment, stating that officials should not be judged by a standard of “perfection or near perfection” when faced with potential immediate danger. Because swift action was necessary, the Inn Owners were not entitled to more process before the closure.
Qualified Immunity and Regulatory Taking
Because the court found no underlying constitutional violation regarding procedural due process, the claim against Fortune in his individual capacity under Section 1983 failed. Even if a violation had occurred, the court found Fortune was entitled to qualified immunity because the Inn Owners could not point to clearly established law that would have prohibited his conduct under these emergency circumstances.
Finally, the Inn Owners’ Fifth Amendment claim—that the temporary closure was an uncompensated regulatory taking—was also rejected. The court reiterated that a lawful exercise of a state’s police power to regulate for public health and safety is generally not considered a taking. Closing the Inn due to documented safety deficiencies falls under this permissible exercise of police power, similar to abating a public nuisance.
The appellate court affirmed the district court’s judgment in full. The Calumet Inn remained closed until November 2020 after all fire code violations were finally corrected, though the business permanently closed in 2022.