Air Sunshine, Inc. v. Carl
2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 23923
1st Cir.2011Background
- Air Sunshine sued FAA employee Stephen Carl and others, asserting Bivens claims for procedural due process and First Amendment retaliation along with other causes of action.
- Magistrate judge denied dismissal for two Bivens claims against Carl; Air Sunshine appeals the qualified-immunity ruling.
- Three factual threads underlie the claims: SAAB 340 proving-test delays, aging C402 inspections, and a ferry-permit denial/delay.
- Carl became involved in Air Sunshine matters in Aug. 2008; alleged delays continued into 2009, with various communications and inspections.
- Air Sunshine sought $7 million in damages; the court analyzes whether the complaints plausibly plead constitutional violations and facially establish a right that was clearly established.
- The First Circuit reverses, holding the alleged facts do not meet Iqbal pleading standards and warrant no qualified immunity for Carl.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Procedural due process viability | Air Sunshine alleges deprivation of property interest via C402 inspection delay. | Carl's actions were discretionary and permitted; no deprivation or due-process violation stated. | Claim fails under Iqbal; no plausible deprivation or authority to grant extension. |
| First Amendment retaliation viability | Delays were retaliatory for Air Sunshine's criticism of Hau-Lepera. | Delay evidence does not plausibly show motive tied to protected speech; delays predate Carl's involvement. | Retaliation claim fails; no plausible causal link or protected-speech connection shown. |
| Bivens viability given alternative remedies | Bivens remedy should apply for constitutional violations by federal officials. | Administrative Procedure Act provides adequate remedy; Bivens not warranted here. | Court notes Bivens not viable; reverses on qualified immunity grounds. |
Key Cases Cited
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (U.S. 2009) (pleading standard: plausible claims require more than conclusory statements)
- Soto-Torres v. Fraticelli, 654 F.3d 153 (1st Cir. 2011) (accepts well-pled facts on denial of qualified immunity on pleadings)
- Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223 (U.S. 2009) (two-step qualified-immunity framework)
- Town of Castle Rock v. Gonzales, 545 U.S. 748 (U.S. 2005) (extension of discretion in benefits; not a protected entitlement)
- Gorelik v. Costin, 605 F.3d 118 (1st Cir. 2010) (First Amendment retaliation standards)
- Davis v. Passman, 442 U.S. 228 (U.S. 1979) (Bivens extends to certain due process claims; historical scope)
- Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (U.S. 2007) (plausibility standard for complaint)
- Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. 1937 (U.S. 2009) (applies plausibility standard to pleadings; rejects bare assertions)