Kenneth Haggard v. John Stevens
683 F.3d 714
6th Cir.2012Background
- Plaintiffs Kenneth Haggard and Maryann Tomczyk are sole shareholder and Chairman of Miami Valley Bank; they also own stock in a mortgage lender related to bank loans.
- FDIC investigated the bank's loan agreements; regulators eventually closed the bank and appointed FDIC as receiver.
- FDIC purportedly halted its investigation after an accounting expert confirmed loans were legal; the mortgage company then sought $10M from the receiver.
- Plaintiffs allege the defendant John Stevens prompted the FDIC to resume the investigation in retaliation for the $10M demand, violating the First Amendment (Bivens claim).
- Stevens died after suit was filed; the district court dismissed the Bivens action as extinguished by Stevens’ death under Ohio survivorship law.
- The majority holds survivorship is governed by state law (Ohio) and Ohio law extinguishes the claim; the judgment is affirmed.
- Concurrence notes district court misapplied choice-of-law rules and discusses unresolved interstitial issues about survivorship in federal civil rights suits.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Bivens survivorship is automatic upon death of a party | Carlson requires uniform survivorship | Carlson is not universal; depends on death caused by defendant; state-law may apply | Not universal; survivorship governed by state law (Ohio) per the court’s approach |
| Whether Ohio survivorship law extinguishes the Bivens claim here | Ohio rule may allow survival for non-physical injuries | Ohio limits survivorship based on physical-injury definition | Ohio law extinguishes the Bivens claim in this case |
| Whether federal common-law or state-law should govern survivorship in interstitial Bivens actions | Federal common law should control survivorship | State law fills gaps for survivorship | Forum-state Ohio supplies the interstitial rule and extinguishes the claim |
Key Cases Cited
- Carlson v. Green, 446 U.S. 14 (1980) (uniform survivorship not unlimited; death-caused cases singled out)
- Malesko v. Corr. Servs. Corp., 534 U.S. 61 (2001) (deterrence is core purpose of Bivens; limits on expansion of liability)
- Meyer v. FDIC, 510 U.S. 471 (1994) (purpose of Bivens is deterrence of officers’ violations)
- Wilson v. Garcia, 471 U.S. 261 (1985) (taxonomy of personal-injury actions; avoid importing state-law categories)
- Owens v. Okure, 488 U.S. 235 (1989) (residual state-law rules for limitations; relevance to interstitial rules)
- Jaco v. Bloechle, 739 F.2d 239 (1984) (forum-state rule for survivorship in federal actions)