Big Cats of Serenity Springs, Inc. v. Rhodes
2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 21988
| 10th Cir. | 2016Background
- Big Cats of Serenity Springs, a USDA-licensed exhibitor under the Animal Welfare Act (AWA), alleged APHIS inspectors forcibly entered its locked facility without permission during an unannounced inspection on May 7, 2013.
- The inspectors arrived after the facility was closed and, believing they had authority, enlisted two El Paso County deputies who cut chains and locks; employees informed them the tiger cubs were at a veterinarian, so the inspectors departed.
- Big Cats had scheduled veterinary care and had transported the cubs to a clinic to comply with an APHIS citation’s 8:00 a.m. deadline. Big Cats alleges it never refused access or treatment.
- Big Cats sued the APHIS inspectors seeking damages under Bivens (Fourth Amendment) and, alternatively, under 42 U.S.C. § 1983; the district court denied the inspectors’ motion to dismiss based on qualified immunity.
- On interlocutory appeal, the Tenth Circuit affirmed that a Bivens claim can proceed (no adequate alternative remedy and no special factors precluding Bivens) and held the inspectors violated clearly established Fourth Amendment law by forcibly entering without a warrant or exigency.
- The court reversed the § 1983 claim dismissal denial, holding federal inspectors did not act "under color of state law" merely by enlisting local deputies (no conspiracy or shared unconstitutional objective alleged).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Availability of a Bivens remedy for unlawful warrantless entry under the AWA | Bivens is the proper avenue because the AWA provides no remedy for unlawful searches/forcible entries by inspectors | AWA administrative/APA review and penalties constitute an adequate alternative that displaces Bivens | Bivens claim allowed: AWA does not provide an adequate alternative to vindicate Fourth Amendment rights here |
| Whether inspectors’ forcible entry violated the Fourth Amendment | The forcible, non-emergency entry of locked commercial premises was an unreasonable search absent a warrant or statutory authorization | Inspections under AWA and related regulations implicitly permit forcible entry in furtherance of regulatory duties | Violation: under Colonnade/Burger framework, forcible entry without warrant or exigency was unlawful given the AWA/regulations’ silence on force here |
| Qualified immunity: was the unlawfulness clearly established? | Inspectors should have known Colonnade and related precedent required a warrant for forcible entry in similar inspection schemes | The AWA/regulations (and confiscation rule) created ambiguity; reasonable officials could think forcible entry was permissible in emergencies or under §2.129 | Denied qualified immunity at motion-to-dismiss stage: law was clearly established that forcible non-emergency entry required a warrant or exception |
| Applicability of § 1983 to federal APHIS inspectors who enlisted deputies | Federal actors acted jointly with deputies and thus acted under color of state law, allowing § 1983 suit | Federal officials do not become state actors absent a conspiracy or shared unconstitutional goal; merely requesting assistance isn’t enough | § 1983 claim dismissed: no plausible allegation federal and state actors shared a common unconstitutional objective or engaged in a conspiracy |
Key Cases Cited
- Bivens v. Six Unknown Narcotics Agents, 403 U.S. 388 (recognition of a damages remedy against federal officers for Fourth Amendment violations)
- Wilkie v. Robbins, 551 U.S. 537 (framework for deciding whether to extend Bivens; examine alternative remedies and special factors)
- Colonnade Catering Corp. v. United States, 397 U.S. 72 (warrant required for forcible entry into closed commercial premises absent statutory authorization)
- New York v. Burger, 482 U.S. 691 (administrative inspection doctrine and reduced privacy expectations for closely regulated businesses)
- Minneci v. Pollard, 565 U.S. 118 (existence of alternative remedial processes can preclude Bivens)
- Ashcroft v. al-Kidd, 563 U.S. 731 (qualified immunity—right must be clearly established so that reasonable officials would know conduct was unlawful)