Moody v. Michigan Gaming Control Board
202 F. Supp. 3d 756
E.D. Mich.2016Background
- In 2010 the Michigan Gaming Control Board (MGCB) investigated anonymous tips that certain harness-racing drivers (plaintiffs) fixed races; plaintiffs invoked the Fifth Amendment at an investigatory hearing and refused to answer.
- MGCB suspended the drivers’ 2010 licenses and issued Exclusion Orders; MGCB conditioned lifting the orders on plaintiffs answering questions without counsel and effectively prevented consideration of their 2011 license applications.
- Plaintiffs sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging Fifth Amendment self-incrimination violations, deprivation of property without due process, and unconstitutional conditions; district court initially granted summary judgment to MGCB, but the Sixth Circuit reversed in part.
- The Sixth Circuit held suspensions/exclusions violated the Fifth Amendment and found a genuine dispute whether plaintiffs received required post-exclusion due process, and remanded for further proceedings.
- On remand, parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment; this opinion grants defendants summary judgment in part (Fifth Amendment qualified immunity) and denies summary judgment to plaintiffs and in part to defendants on due process and personal-involvement issues.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether defendants violated plaintiffs’ Fifth Amendment right by suspending/revoking licenses when plaintiffs asserted the privilege | MGCB may not punish licensees for invoking the Fifth; state must offer immunity before disciplining | Defendants argue no clearly established rule required offering immunity before disciplining licensees for refusing regulatory questions | Sixth Circuit already found a Fifth Amendment violation on the merits, but this Court finds defendants entitled to qualified immunity because, before Moody, the right to require immunity was not clearly established |
| Whether plaintiffs were denied procedural due process by being excluded and having license applications not treated as hearing requests | Plaintiffs: MGCB treated 2011 license applications as de facto hearing requests and denied prompt post-exclusion hearings | Defendants: MGCB did not construe the applications as hearing requests and later provided hearings so no due process violation | District court denies defendants summary judgment on due process (dispute of material fact whether MGCB construed applications as hearing requests); plaintiffs’ motion denied in part because some asserted timing claims post-date complaint |
| Personal involvement of supervisory defendants (for § 1983 liability) | Plaintiffs allege certain supervisors (Ernst, Lessnau) personally participated in denial of hearings/exclusions | Defendants argue lack of personal involvement for several supervisors | Court finds material issues as to Ernst and Lessnau (denies personal-involvement defense for them); other supervisors are protected by qualified immunity on Fifth Amendment claims so their involvement need not be resolved |
| Whether racing stewards are entitled to quasi-judicial immunity for suspensions/exclusions | Plaintiffs: stewards acted unconstitutionally and are not immune | Defendants: stewards performed impartial adjudicative functions and deserve quasi-judicial immunity | Court notes factors supporting quasi-judicial immunity but declines to decide because stewards already protected by qualified immunity on Fifth Amendment claims |
Key Cases Cited
- Moody v. Michigan Gaming Control Board, 790 F.3d 669 (6th Cir. 2015) (holds suspensions/exclusions violated Fifth Amendment and remands due-process question)
- Spevack v. Klein, 385 U.S. 511 (1967) (threat of professional sanction for asserting Fifth Amendment privilege can violate Fifth Amendment)
- Gardner v. Broderick, 392 U.S. 273 (1968) (public employees may be disciplined for refusing to answer work‑related questions provided they are not required to waive the privilege)
- Lefkowitz v. Turley, 414 U.S. 70 (1973) (termination of public contracts for refusal to waive privilege violates Fifth Amendment absent waiver)
- Lefkowitz v. Cunningham, 431 U.S. 801 (1977) (statutory disqualification for refusal to waive privilege violates Fifth Amendment)
- Barry v. Barchi, 443 U.S. 55 (1979) (suspended licensees are entitled to a prompt post‑suspension hearing)