John Moody v. Michigan Gaming Control Board
790 F.3d 669
| 6th Cir. | 2015Background
- In May 2010 Michigan Gaming Control Board (MGCB) investigators warned four licensed harness drivers they faced arrest and questioned them at an investigatory hearing; the drivers invoked the Fifth Amendment and refused to answer potentially self‑incriminating questions.
- The MGCB suspended the drivers’ 2010 racing licenses and issued orders excluding them from racing grounds, conditioning return to the track on their answering questions without counsel.
- The drivers appealed administratively and in state court; their state‑court challenge was later dismissed as moot, and they applied unsuccessfully for new licenses in subsequent years.
- In August 2012 the drivers sued the MGCB under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 seeking damages and declaratory/injunctive relief for alleged Fifth Amendment and due‑process violations; the district court granted summary judgment to the MGCB.
- On appeal the Sixth Circuit affirmed in part (no deprivation of due process from the suspensions because prompt postsuspension process was provided) and reversed in part, holding triable Fifth Amendment and post‑exclusion due‑process questions existed and remanding for further proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Did suspension/exclusion for invoking the Fifth Amendment violate the Fifth Amendment? | Moody: State punished them for asserting privilege; state needed to offer immunity before requiring testimony. | MGCB: No Fifth Amendment violation absent compelled incriminating statements; Chavez and other precedent permit state action. | Reversed: Punishing licensees for refusing to answer without immunity can violate the Fifth Amendment; triable issue remains whether rights were clearly established. |
| 2. Were drivers entitled to due process before/after suspension of licenses? | Moody: Licenses are property interests; at least prompt postsuspension hearing required. | MGCB: Summary suspension was lawful under state statute; available state process sufficed. | Affirmed (suspension): Drivers received adequate postsuspension process (state court hearing); no federal due‑process violation as to suspension. |
| 3. Were drivers entitled to due process (hearing) after exclusion orders? | Moody: Exclusion orders were final deprivations requiring post‑exclusion hearing; applicants’ later license applications could constitute timely requests for review. | MGCB: Drivers failed to make the required written request within applicable timelines so no hearing was due. | Reversed (exclusion): Material factual dispute whether drivers sought the de novo hearings or whether MGCB should have treated license applications as requests—remanded. |
| 4. Qualified immunity for MGCB officials? | Moody: Officials should have known that suspending/excluding for asserting the Fifth without offering immunity was unconstitutional. | MGCB: Rights were not clearly established; qualified immunity shields officials. | Remanded: Whether the right was clearly established is a question for further proceedings. |
Key Cases Cited
- Malloy v. Hogan, 378 U.S. 1 (privilege against self‑incrimination applies to states)
- Garrity v. New Jersey, 385 U.S. 493 (public employees compelled to choose between job and self‑incrimination are protected)
- Chavez v. Martinez, 538 U.S. 760 (plurality and split opinions on when compelled interrogation without use in prosecution violates the Fifth Amendment)
- McKinley v. Mansfield, 404 F.3d 418 (6th Cir.) (Fifth Amendment analysis where statements later used or where Garrity protection may not apply to independent prosecution for falsification)
- Barry v. Barchi, 443 U.S. 55 (summary suspension of license permitted but requires prompt postsuspension hearing)
- Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319 (balancing test for what process is due)