Haines v. Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration
814 F.3d 417
6th Cir.2016Background
- Plaintiff Roger Haines operates Haines Tours and converted a bus luggage compartment into a sleeper area; FMCSA initially advised compliance with 49 C.F.R. § 393.76 would permit such use.
- After family members rode in the converted area, FMCSA issued an out-of-service order on June 10, 2011, labeling Haines Tours an “imminent hazard” and removing multiple buses from service.
- FMCSA field administrator Jones briefly rescinded the order on June 15, 2011; Administrator Ferro vacated that rescission the next day, prolonging the operational suspension.
- Haines alleges business losses, emotional harm, and reputational injury and sued (filed 2014) asserting (1) APA claim, (2) § 1983 procedural due process claim, and (3) § 1983 equal protection claim; he later sought to amend to assert Bivens claims against federal agents individually.
- District court dismissed: APA claim for lack of jurisdiction (failure to exhaust and non-final agency action) and dismissed constitutional claims because § 1983 does not reach federal actors; denied leave to amend (statute of limitations and availability of administrative remedies). Court of Appeals affirmed on alternative grounds.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Jurisdiction under the APA | Haines said he could sue under APA and sought restitution/injunctive relief | Defendants argued lack of jurisdiction due to failure to exhaust, non-final agency action, and sovereign immunity for money damages | Court: APA jurisdiction exists under § 1331 but dismissal affirmed because APA cannot be used where an adequate statutory review remedy exists (failure to state a claim); monetary damages under APA barred by sovereign immunity |
| Exhaustion of administrative remedies | Haines argued exhaustion was not required (Darby) | Defendants argued statute/regulation required exhaustion before court review | Court: Exhaustion was not mandatory here (statute/regulation permissive), so exhaustion not a jurisdictional bar; but APA claim fails on other grounds |
| Final agency action / Adequate alternative remedy | Haines contended the out-of-service order was final and he had no other adequate judicial remedy | Defendants pointed to statutory administrative review and appellate review under 49 U.S.C. § 521 | Held: Haines failed to show no other adequate remedy — statute provides administrative and appellate review, so APA relief improper |
| Constitutional claims (§ 1983 / Bivens) | Haines sought damages for due process and equal protection violations and requested leave to replead as Bivens claims | Defendants argued § 1983 does not apply to federal actors; alternative remedies exist and Bivens extension is inappropriate; statute of limitations bars Bivens claims | Held: § 1983 dismissed (not available against federal actors). Leave to amend to assert Bivens claims denied because an adequate alternative statutory review exists (and amendment would be futile); Bivens not extended here |
Key Cases Cited
- Jama v. Dep’t of Homeland Sec., 760 F.3d 490 (6th Cir. 2014) (APA is not a jurisdiction-conferring statute; review under § 1331 and final-action inquiry is merits, not jurisdictional)
- Darby v. Cisneros, 509 U.S. 137 (1993) (APA does not require exhaustion of optional intra-agency appeals)
- Bowen v. Massachusetts, 487 U.S. 879 (1988) (distinguishing money damages from equitable relief/restitution under the APA)
- Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents, 403 U.S. 388 (1971) (implied cause of action for damages against federal officers for constitutional violations)
- Wilkie v. Robbins, 551 U.S. 537 (2007) (framework for deciding whether to imply a Bivens remedy, including alternative remedies and special factors)
- Schweiker v. Chilicky, 487 U.S. 412 (1988) (courts should not create Bivens remedies where Congress has provided adequate remedial mechanisms)
- Corr. Servs. Corp. v. Malesko, 534 U.S. 61 (2001) (refusal to extend Bivens to new contexts or categories of defendants)
- Left Fork Mining Co. v. Hooker, 775 F.3d 768 (6th Cir. 2014) (Bivens two-step and the requirement to show no alternative process and absence of special factors)