Rebirth Christian Academy Daycare, Inc. v. Brizzi, 96 F. Supp. 3d 835

Rebirth filed a 42 U.S.C. §1983 action against the Indiana FSSA challenging termination of its registration as an unlicensed child care ministry without an administrative appeal process.
The defendants are Melanie Brizzi (as Child Care Administrator) and Debra Minott (as FSSA Secretary); the court previously dismissed individual-capacity claims, leaving only injunctive relief claims.
Indiana permits unlicensed ministries to operate if they register with the BCC and meet statutory/regulatory requirements, with exemptions from licensure conditioned on compliance.
BCC inspections generate plans of improvement or correction; however, there is no clear administrative appeal procedure for unlicensed ministries.
In May 2012, Rebirth received a Plan of Improvement listing eight violations; Rebirth did not timely return the plan, and in June 2012 the BCC terminated its registration; Rebirth ceased operation and subsequently sued, seeking process protections.
The court ultimately denied the defendants’ summary judgment motion and granted Rebirth’s summary judgment on the due process issue, ordering the parties to propose or agree on new administrative procedures via a status report.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Rebirth has a protected property interest in the exemption from licensure	Rebirth has a durable state-created entitlement to operate as an unlicensed ministry	Exemption is a discretionary benefit not a protected property interest	Yes, Rebirth has a protectable property interest in the exemption
Whether termination without a pre-termination hearing violated due process	Due process requires notice and an opportunity to be heard before deprivation	Informal remedies and post-deprivation review suffice	Yes, termination without adequate pre-termination process violated due process
Whether the Plan of Improvement and post-deprivation remedies satisfy due process	Plan of Improvement is an inadequate, non-impartial hearing lacking notice	Plan of Improvement plus post-deprivation remedies suffice	No, neither plan nor post-deprivation remedies satisfy due process; more process is required
Whether the court should order an administrative appeal process for unlicensed ministries	Administrative appeal similar to that for licensed facilities should be provided	No administrative appeal process exists or is required for unlicensed ministries	Court declines to order specific procedures but requires joint status reports to shape an administrative process; injunction not yet detailed here

Reed v. Village of Shorewood, 704 F.2d 943 (7th Cir. 1983) (property interest inquiry hinges on state law and the durability of exemptions)
Cornelius v. LaCroix, 838 F.2d 210 (7th Cir. 1988) (secure and durable entitlement when state law creates a benefit with nondiscretionary rules)
Brown v. City of Michigan City, Ind., 462 F.3d 720 (7th Cir. 2006) (license revocation and due process considerations in state regulatory schemes)
Goldberg v. Kelly, 397 U.S. 254 (1970) (due process requires an impartial hearing for significant governmental deprivation)
Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319 (1976) (three-factor balancing test for determining required process)
Parratt v. Taylor, 451 U.S. 527 (1981) (post-deprivation remedy doctrine where pre-deprivation process is unavailable due to random error)
Doyle v. Camelot Care Centers, Inc., 305 F.3d 603 (7th Cir. 2002) (due process scrutiny of administrative procedures in child-care contexts)