Cripps v. Louisiana Department of Agriculture & Forestry
819 F.3d 221
| 5th Cir. | 2016Background
- Plaintiffs Michael, David, and Willie Cripps are licensed/formerly licensed pest-control professionals who faced administrative fines, license denials/suspensions, and record-inspection orders from the Louisiana Structural Pest Control Commission (within LDAF) for alleged violations of Louisiana pest-control law.
- Michael and David had stipulated to earlier fines (1999–2000); nonpayment prompted later hearings and increased penalties; Michael’s 2011 registration was denied pending payment.
- Willie was cited after an inspection/complaint for under-applying termiticide and was ordered to produce records and potentially re-treat properties; he refused a warrantless inspector entry.
- Plaintiffs sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 asserting First Amendment retaliation, Fourteenth Amendment substantive and procedural due process violations, and Eighth Amendment excessive fines claims; they also asserted parallel state constitutional claims.
- The district court granted summary judgment for Defendants (LDAF and Assistant Director David Fields individually); plaintiffs appealed. The Fifth Circuit affirmed in all respects.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| First Amendment retaliation | Cripps family speech/complaints to the Commission precipitated punitive administrative actions (fines, license denials, record inspections). | Commission actions enforced regulatory violations; Fields did not vote and was not the decisive actor; temporal proximity alone insufficient to prove retaliation. | Affirmed: No genuine issue of material fact; plaintiffs failed to show causation or that actions were motivated by protected speech. |
| Substantive due process | Denial/suspension of ability to work and demands to re-treat/inspect records deprived liberty without a rational basis; conduct was arbitrary. | Actions were regulatory responses rationally related to legitimate state interests (public health/safety); within statutory authority. | Affirmed: Commission’s actions were rationally related to legitimate interests; no conscience-shocking conduct. |
| Eighth Amendment (Excessive Fines) | Monetary penalties and interest were excessive and punitive. | Either the Excessive Fines Clause is not incorporated against the States, or in any event fines were within statutory limits and not grossly disproportional. | Affirmed: Assuming incorporation, fines did not exceed statutory maxima or appear grossly disproportional. |
| Qualified immunity for Fields | Fields’ presence and prior interactions amount to personal involvement; rights were clearly established. | Fields acted in a discretionary role and did not commit a constitutional violation; mere presence at a hearing is not actionable. | Affirmed: Court need not decide immunity because no underlying constitutional violation was established. |
Key Cases Cited
- Keenan v. Tejeda, 290 F.3d 252 (5th Cir. 2002) (framework for First Amendment retaliation elements)
- Hartman v. Moore, 547 U.S. 250 (2006) (but-for causation in retaliatory-prosecution contexts discussed)
- Tompkins v. Vickers, 26 F.3d 603 (5th Cir. 1994) (temporal proximity alone insufficient to show retaliation)
- City of Cuyahoga Falls v. Buckeye Cmty. Hope Found., 538 U.S. 188 (2003) (regulatory denial can be rationally related to legitimate governmental interest)
- Newell Recycling Co. v. E.P.A., 231 F.3d 204 (5th Cir. 2000) (administrative fines do not violate the Eighth Amendment if within statutory limits)
- McDonald v. City of Chicago, 561 U.S. 742 (2010) (discussion of incorporation questions)
- Browning–Ferris Indus. v. Kelco Disposal, 492 U.S. 257 (1989) (declining to decide Eighth Amendment incorporation)
- Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800 (1982) (qualified immunity analytical framework)
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (1986) (summary judgment standard)
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, 477 U.S. 242 (1986) (summary judgment and genuine-issue standard)