Jones v. State, 170 Wash. 2d 338

Board summary-suspended Jones’s licenses without notice or a hearing after unsatisfactory inspections.
Jones’s four inspections (Dec 1998, Feb 1999, Jul 1999, Aug 1999) yielded fluctuating scores from 79 to 96, with later inspections alleging serious deficiencies largely in record-keeping and DEA-related issues.
August 17, 1999 ex parte order suspended licenses for ‘serious risk’ to public; Jones later faced a prompt hearing option but waived it, choosing instead an expedited route.
Jones’s franchise terminated; he filed an administrative motion to modify and stay, then pursued a regular hearing, which was delayed; he ultimately signed a stipulated order revoking his pharmacy license and suspending his pharmacist license for five years.
Jones exhausted administrative remedies by accepting the final Board order, though he did not undergo a formal adjudicative hearing; he then sued state actors under §1983 and asserted state tort claims.
The Court of Appeals held no due process violation and exhaustion barred tort claims; the Supreme Court reversed, allowing genuine issues about due process and exhaustion.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether inspectors Wene and Jeppesen may be liable under §1983 for due process violation	Jones asserts fabrication of an emergency by inspectors caused ex parte suspension.	Wene and Jeppesen are entitled to qualified immunity; no fabrication found.	Genuine issue of material fact as to fabrication exists.
Whether the fabrication of an emergency by inspectors violated due process	Fabricated emergency justified predeprivation suspension without notice.	No fabrication; emergency justified summary action.	Fabrication question material; jury could find a due process violation.
Whether Jones exhausted administrative remedies to bar state tort claims	Exhaustion satisfied because final agency action occurred and waiver of expedited hearing did not negate exhaustion.	Exhaustion not satisfied due to waiver and procedural path; final order not equivalent to adjudicative hearing.	Exhaustion deemed satisfied; it foreclosed tort claims.

Robinson v. City of Seattle, 119 Wn.2d 34 (1992) (qualified immunity framework for §1983 claims)
Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800 (1982) (objective reasonableness and clearly established law)
Anderson v. Creighton, 483 U.S. 635 (1987) (clearly established right; necessity of prior notice may vary)
Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223 (2009) (addressing order of operations for qualified immunity)
Mitchell v. Forsyth, 472 U.S. 511 (1985) (two-part inquiry for qualified immunity)
Zahrey v. Coffey, 221 F.3d 342 (1st Cir. 2000) (fabrication of evidence and due process implications)
Armendariz v. Penman, 31 F.3d 860 (9th Cir. 1994) (emergency fabrication implications)
Limone v. Condon, 372 F.3d 39 (1st Cir. 2004) (fundamental prohibition on fabricating evidence)
Catanzaro v. Weiden, 188 F.3d 56 (2d Cir. 1999) (deference to emergency assessments but cannot be abusive)
Ongom v. Dep’t of Health, 159 Wn.2d 132 (2006) (licensee’s property interest and due process)