Fabrikant v. French
2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 17254
| 2d Cir. | 2012Background
- Fabrikant, a dog owner in upstate New York, housed a large number of her animals and sought adoptive homes for some puppies.
- SPCA investigator Spinato and others conducted visits; initial inspections found overcrowding but no charges were filed at that time.
- Witnesses described severe unsanitary and unhealthy conditions; affidavits described taped snouts, twine collars, and feces-filled environments.
- A state search warrant led SPCA officers to raid Fabrikant’s property, seize nine puppies and other animals, and arrest Fabrikant on animal-cruelty charges.
- SPCA subsequently spayed/neutered the seized dogs and fostered them while Fabrikant’s state criminal case proceeded, which ended in acquittals at trial.
- Fabrikant sued under §1983 alleging due process, malicious prosecution, unreasonable search and seizure, and First Amendment retaliation; district court granted summary judgment for defendants.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was SPCA spaying action state action under §1983? | Fabrikant argues SPCA's surgery actions were not state action. | SPCA argues actions were statute- or policy-driven state function. | Yes; SPCA spaying/neutering was state action under public-function theory. |
| Are SPCA spaying actions entitled to qualified immunity? | Rights to avoid forced sterilization not clearly established. | Broad NY law empowered SPCA; actions within statutory scope. | Qualified immunity granted; right not clearly established in 2002. |
| Was there probable cause to justify search, arrest, and prosecution? | Probable cause contested due to alleged witness falsity and contested conditions. | Multiple witnesses and conditions supported probable cause; video corroborated. | Yes; probable cause supported search, arrest, and prosecution. |
| Did the district court err in considering state-court probable-cause determinations collateral estoppel? | State-court findings should not bar federal review. | State court determinations may inform, but collateral estoppel did not control here. | District court erred on collateral estoppel analysis, but affirmance stands on probable cause/ immunity grounds. |
Key Cases Cited
- West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42 (U.S. Supreme Court 1988) (state actor when private physician performs state-conferred duties)
- Cooper v. United States Postal Service, 577 F.3d 491 (2d Cir. 2009) (public-function test for state action via delegated government function)
- Sybalski v. Indep. Grp. Home Living Program, Inc., 546 F.3d 255 (2d Cir. 2008) (public-function/entwinement concepts for state action)
- Rendell-Baker v. Kohn, 457 U.S. 830 (U.S. Supreme Court 1982) (private entity can be state actor when performing state function)
- United States v. Stein, 541 F.3d 130 (2d Cir. 2008) (state-action considerations for private entities under §1983)
- Padgett v. City of New York, 1 F.3d 96 (2d Cir. 1993) (animal-control related public-function discussion)