High Plains Livestock, LLC v. Allen
2:17-cv-00349
D.N.M.Jun 19, 2019Background
- High Plains Livestock, its owner Michael Flen, and Calvin and Darcie Pareo sued the New Mexico Livestock Board (NMLB) and individual NMLB officials (Barry Allen, Shawn Davis, Ray Baca) alleging long‑running harassment, improper inspections, seizures, defamatory statements, and revocation of High Plains’ auction license.
- Key factual allegations: prelicense warnings not to hire the Pareos; arbitrary citations later dismissed; repeated atypical inspections and restrictions on inspectors’ time at sales; warrants and a search/raid that seized business records and numerous personal documents; missing/destroyed evidence (audio recordings) and alleged perjured testimony; and subsequent criminal charges that were dismissed at trial.
- Plaintiffs pleaded state tort claims and federal claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for Fourth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendment violations, plus a § 1983 malicious‑prosecution claim; Individual Defendants moved to dismiss the federal claims under Rule 12(b)(6).
- The court evaluated pleadings under Twombly/Iqbal plausibility standards and addressed qualified immunity where applicable, treating many allegations as either conclusory or inadequately pleaded.
- The court dismissed all federal claims: Fourth Amendment claims (invalid affidavits, overbroad/unauthorized seizures, unlawful seizure of persons, warrantless tag seizure), Sixth Amendment claims (destruction of exculpatory evidence and alleged perjury), Fourteenth Amendment due process and class‑of‑one equal protection claims, and § 1983 malicious prosecution — finding either pleading deficiencies or qualified immunity.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Validity of search warrant / affidavits | Affidavits were invalid and warrant lacked probable cause | Complaint fails to plead facts showing falsity or lack of probable cause | Dismissed — conclusory allegation; no factual support for Franks claim |
| Scope of warrant / improper seizures | Executing officers seized many non‑business items outside warrant scope | Even if some non‑listed items seized, plaintiffs cite no controlling precedent; qualified immunity applies | Dismissed — plaintiffs failed to show seizure was clearly unconstitutional |
| Unreasonable seizure of persons during raid | Plaintiffs were not free to leave due to show of authority | Complaint lacks factual allegations showing a seizure; leave to amend denied as unjustified delay | Dismissed — not plausibly pleaded |
| Warrantless seizure of metal clips/tags | Brand inspectors seized tags without warrant or cause | Individual Defendants not alleged to have ordered/participated; cannot be liable for acts they did not cause or commit | Dismissed — no personal involvement alleged |
| Destruction/suppression of exculpatory audio (Sixth Amendment) | Agents destroyed or concealed exculpatory recordings causing unfair trial | Plaintiffs show no conviction or adverse outcome; dismissal of charges undermines fair‑trial injury theory | Dismissed — loss of evidence claim fails where no showing of denied fair trial |
| Alleged perjury by agent in grand jury | Agent lied under oath, causing indictment | Witnesses have absolute immunity for testimony to grand jury/trial | Dismissed — Briscoe absolute immunity for alleged perjury |
| Due process re: seized property / license revocation | Deprivation of property without adequate postdeprivation process; license revoked based on pending charges and arbitrary rule changes | State law provides replevin and regulatory scheme; plaintiffs failed to plead denial or inadequacy of postdeprivation remedies; license rules create entitlement only if conditions unmet | Dismissed — plaintiffs did not plead a cognizable deprivation of process |
| Class‑of‑one equal protection | Plaintiffs were singled out and treated differently from similarly situated operators | Complaint lacks factual allegations identifying similarly situated comparators and showing irrational disparate treatment | Dismissed — conclusory allegations insufficient |
| § 1983 malicious prosecution | Indictment and seizures were based on perjury, destroyed evidence, invalid warrants | Malicious‑prosecution claim depends on showing constitutional violations already found insufficient; qualified immunity applies | Dismissed — underlying constitutional claims not plausibly alleged |
Key Cases Cited
- Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (plausibility standard for complaints)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (pleading standard; conclusory allegations insufficient)
- Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154 (requirements for challenging affidavits supporting warrants)
- Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223 (qualified immunity framework)
- White v. Pauly, 137 S. Ct. 548 (qualified immunity and objective reasonableness)
- Kisela v. Hughes, 138 S. Ct. 1148 (clearly established law requirement for qualified immunity)
- District of Columbia v. Wesby, 138 S. Ct. 577 (need for precedent to overcome qualified immunity)
- Briscoe v. LaHue, 460 U.S. 325 (absolute immunity for witness testimony; perjury claims not cognizable under § 1983)
- United States v. Mendenhall, 446 U.S. 544 (test for seizure — whether a reasonable person would feel free to leave)
- Morgan v. Gertz, 166 F.3d 1307 (duty to preserve exculpatory evidence and fair‑trial impact)
- Kansas Penn Gaming, LLC v. Collins, 656 F.3d 1210 (requirement to plead specific facts showing similarly situated comparators for equal protection claims)