433 F. App'x 420
6th Cir.2011Background
- Regency sought a CON from ODH in 2005 to rebuild its nursing facilities; plan involved two phases with relocation of residents.
- HUD financing was contingent on a single, combined project; Regency altered its plan without discussing with ODH and informed residents of relocation.
- ODH conditioned CON on maintaining resident care; Regency faced warnings that deviation could lead to withdrawal of the CON.
- Regency relocated residents and closed the existing facility; ODH later deemed this a reviewable activity and revoked the CON, imposing penalties and a moratorium.
- State courts upheld ODH’s interpretation and penalties; Ohio Court of Appeals affirmed the revocation and penalties; Ohio Supreme Court denied review, finalizing state decision.
- Regency filed a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 suit against ODH employees in their personal capacities; district court denied qualified immunity with leave to renew; intervening Supreme Court decisions altered the framework for immunity analysis.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Regency’s substantive due process claim meets qualified immunity. | Regency should prevail as rights were violated. | Actions were reasonable; no clearly established violation. | Defendants entitled to qualified immunity. |
| Whether Regency’s equal protection claim is defeated by qualified immunity. | Alleged animus/irrational treatment could violate equal protection. | Rational basis applies; no clearly established violation. | Defendants entitled to qualified immunity. |
| Whether collateral estoppel from the state court decision forecloses Regency’s federal claims. | State decision should not bar federal claims. | State court decision precludes relitigation of issues. | Collateral estoppel applies; federal claims barred. |
Key Cases Cited
- Mitchell v. Forsyth, 472 U.S. 511 (1985) (appeals-based finality of qualified-immunity rulings)
- Behrens v. Pelletier, 516 U.S. 299 (1996) (finality and scope of qualified-immunity appeal)
- Johnson v. Jones, 515 U.S. 304 (1995) (limitation on Mitchell; clarifies 'clearly established' inquiry)
- Saucier v. Katz, 533 U.S. 194 (2001) (two-step qualified-immunity analysis (mandatory sequence))
- Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223 (2009) (disapproves rigid order of Saucier, allows second prong first)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (pleading standard; plausibility in complaint sufficiency)
- Anderson v. Creighton, 483 U.S. 635 (1987) (objective reasonableness in qualified immunity)
- Olech v. Willowbrook, 528 U.S. 562 (2000) (class-of-one rational-basis review standard)
- Fort Frye Teachers Ass’n, OEA/NEA v. State Employment Relations Bd., 81 Ohio St.3d 392 (1998) (Ohio preclusion principles; collateral estoppel under state decisions)