Bon-Ing Inc. v. Richard Hodges
700 F. App'x 461
| 6th Cir. | 2017Background
- Plaintiffs Bon-Ing, Inc. and its sole shareholder Jennie Calloway (African American) operated a licensed skilled nursing facility in Ohio; ODH conducted multiple complaint and annual surveys in 2014 that found repeated violations and several findings of "real and present danger."
- Interim ODH Director Lance Himes recommended immediate remedies to CMS; CMS imposed penalties and ultimately terminated the facility’s participation in Medicare/Medicaid; plaintiffs did not request the CMS hearing and the facility closed.
- Himes and successor Director Richard Hodges issued successive notices of proposed license revocation, plaintiffs requested an administrative hearing, a hearing officer issued findings, and Hodges adopted the Report & Recommendation and revoked the facility’s state license; plaintiffs did not appeal that administrative adjudication.
- Plaintiffs sued Himes and Hodges in their individual capacities under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging race-based unequal treatment that led to license revocation and CMS termination, seeking $2.65 million in damages.
- Defendants moved to dismiss; the district court granted dismissal on the ground of absolute quasi-judicial and quasi-prosecutorial immunity; the Sixth Circuit reviewed de novo and affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Himes and Hodges are entitled to absolute immunity for actions leading to state license revocation | The directors acted with racial animus and outside protected adjudicative/prosecutorial functions, so immunity does not apply | Their decisions to issue revocation notices, adopt hearing officer R&R, and recommend CMS actions were prosecutorial/adjudicatory functions entitled to absolute immunity | Court: Held directors performed protected prosecutorial/adjudicatory functions; absolute immunity applies |
| Whether recommending action to CMS (termination/SFF/penalties) is protected | Recommendation to CMS was allegedly made in bad faith and motivated by race; thus not protected | Himes’s recommendation to CMS was a prosecutorial function (evaluating surveys and advising CMS) and so is protected | Court: Held Himes’s recommendations were prosecutorial functions entitled to absolute immunity |
| Whether the nature of the proceedings lacked safeguards (defeating immunity) | Plaintiffs argued constitutional rights were threatened and safeguards were insufficient | Defendants pointed to statutorily mandated hearings, administrative appeals, and judicial review as procedural safeguards comparable to judicial process | Court: Held adequate procedural safeguards existed (state administrative hearings, CMS ALJ process, judicial review), supporting immunity |
Key Cases Cited
- Butz v. Economou, 438 U.S. 478 (1978) (absolute immunity for agency adjudicatory functions)
- Forrester v. White, 484 U.S. 219 (1988) (immunity turns on function, not identity)
- Antoine v. Byers & Anderson, Inc., 508 U.S. 429 (1993) (burden on defendant to establish entitlement to absolute immunity)
- Watts v. Burkhart, 978 F.2d 269 (6th Cir. 1992) (quasi-judicial immunity barred equal protection claim against licensing board members)
- Claiborne-Hughes Health Ctr. v. Sebelius, 609 F.3d 839 (6th Cir. 2010) (CMS enforcement procedures include ALJ hearings and further review)
- Yeary v. Goodwill Indus.-Knoxville, Inc., 107 F.3d 443 (6th Cir. 1997) (courts may consider public records and documents central to the complaint on a motion to dismiss)