539 F. App'x 51
3rd Cir.2013Background
- In Feb 2010 Pennsylvania Horse Racing Commission ejected licensed trainer Anthony Adamo and owner Michael Gill from Penn National; notices advised a 48-hour appeal period.
- Adamo timely appealed; discussions with the Commission led to rescission of his ejection on March 5, 2010. Later, Adamo was suspended for failing to appear for an investigative interview; Commonwealth Court upheld that suspension.
- Gill did not appeal within 48 hours; he sought relief over two months later and the Commission denied it as untimely.
- Adamo and Gill sued in federal court alleging violations of equal protection and procedural and substantive due process; the District Court granted judgment as a matter of law for defendants on equal protection and later entered judgment for defendants on due process claims.
- Defendants raised qualified immunity belatedly during trial; the District Court found no waiver and granted qualified immunity where applicable. Plaintiffs appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether defendants waived qualified immunity by raising it late | Plaintiffs argued late assertion prejudiced trial and was waived | Defendants argued no prejudice and entitlement to defense despite late assertion | No abuse of discretion; no waiver (qualified immunity preserved) |
| Whether pre-deprivation hearing was required before ejection | Adamo/Gill: ejection deprived liberty/property requiring pre-deprivation hearing | Defendants: emergency/maintaining race integrity and regulations did not require pre-deprivation hearing | Pre-deprivation hearing not clearly required under controlling law (qualified immunity for lack of clearly established right) |
| Whether Adamo was denied a prompt post-ejection hearing | Adamo: lacked prompt post-deprivation process | Defendants: Adamo timely appealed; discussions and rescission provided meaningful hearing | District Court’s factual findings upheld; no deprivation of prompt post-deprivation hearing |
| Whether Gill was deprived by lack of post-deprivation hearing | Gill: entitled to post-deprivation hearing after ejection | Defendants: Gill received notice of appeal procedure but failed to avail himself | No due process violation; Gill failed to use available procedures |
Key Cases Cited
- Barry v. Barchi, 443 U.S. 55 (1979) (upholding interim suspension of license pending prompt hearing to protect racing integrity)
- Reichle v. Howards, 566 U.S. 658 (2012) (qualified immunity shields officials unless right was clearly established)
- Alvin v. Suzuki, 227 F.3d 107 (3d Cir. 2000) (plaintiff must use available procedures unless they are unavailable or inadequate)
- Dusanek v. Hannon, 677 F.2d 538 (7th Cir. 1982) (state not liable for due process when procedures are available and plaintiff refuses them)
- Armstrong v. Manzo, 380 U.S. 545 (1965) (due process requires opportunity to be heard at a meaningful time and manner)
- Hudson v. Texas Racing Comm’n, 455 F.3d 957 (5th Cir. 2006) (deference to strong state regulation of horse racing)
- County of Sacramento v. Lewis, 523 U.S. 833 (1998) (substantive due process requires conduct that shocks the conscience)