523 F. App'x 515
10th Cir.2013Background
- Collvins, a longtime boiler inspector, held a Utah certificate and a National Board commission; Utah docs authorize annual certificates.
- Division officials investigated safety concerns about Collvins’ inspections and previous disciplinary history, including a 2006 temporary suspension.
- In November 2007, Sturm suspended Collvins’ certificate after confirming erroneous inspections and unsafe performance.
- Collvins sought to appeal the suspension while on disability ( chemotherapy ); the appeal was delayed for months.
- Hackford (division director) oversaw the appeal; Sturm referred the appeal to the Adjudication Division, which held a hearing in October 2008 finding the suspension improper.
- Following the ALJ decision, no certificate was renewed for 2008; Collvins sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claiming procedural due process violations; the district court granted summary judgment on qualified immunity, and the Tenth Circuit affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a pre-deprivation hearing was required given safety concerns. | Collvins contends due process required a pre-deprivation hearing. | Hackford/Sturm contend safety concerns justified pre-hearing suspension. | No pre-deprivation hearing required; safety concerns justified the suspension. |
| Whether the 11-month post-deprivation hearing delay violated due process, given qualified immunity. | Collvins argues delay was unconstitutional. | Division argues delay not clearly unconstitutional; qualified immunity applies. | Delay not clearly established as unconstitutional; defendants entitled to qualified immunity. |
Key Cases Cited
- Camuglia v. City of Albuquerque, 448 F.3d 1214 (10th Cir. 2006) (flexible due process; safety contexts may suspend pre-deprivation rights)
- Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319 (U.S. 1976) (balancing test for due-process protections)
- Gomes v. Wood, 451 F.3d 1122 (10th Cir. 2006) (post-deprivation hearing must be prompt but context matters)
- Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223 (U.S. 2009) (two-step qualified-immunity analysis; order may vary)
- al-Kidd v. Ashcroft, 131 S. Ct. 2074 (U.S. 2011) (qualified immunity requires clearly established rights; not just general principles)
- FDIC v. Mallen, 486 U.S. 230 (U.S. 1988) (fact-intensive inquiry for post-removal due process delays)