Ronald Calzone v. Josh Hawley, 866 F.3d 866

Background

In June 2013 Missouri trooper stopped Ronald Calzone driving a dump truck, asked to inspect it under Mo. Rev. Stat. § 304.230; Calzone refused and received a citation that was later dropped.
Calzone sued the Missouri governor, attorney general, and the highway patrol superintendent under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 seeking declaratory and injunctive relief and nominal damages, challenging § 304.230.1, .2, and .7 facially and as applied.
The district court granted summary judgment for the officials on the facial challenge and dismissed as-applied claims on the pleadings, reasoning officials in their official capacities are not “persons” for damages under § 1983.
On appeal the Eighth Circuit reviewed jurisdiction/standing and Eleventh Amendment limits, focusing on whether each official had a sufficient enforcement connection under Ex parte Young.
The court held Calzone has Article III and Ex parte Young standing to sue the superintendent (she has express rulemaking/implementation authority over § 304.230), but not the governor or the attorney general.
On the merits the court affirmed that § 304.230 subsections are not facially unconstitutional under New York v. Burger for inspections of commercial motor vehicles, but it reversed dismissal of Calzone’s as-applied claim for injunctive/declaratory relief against the superintendent and remanded for further factual/legal development.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Standing / jurisdiction as to each defendant	Calzone argued each named official should be enjoined because they are state actors tied to enforcement	Defendants argued governor and attorney general lack specific enforcement connection; Eleventh Amendment bars suit	Calzone has standing only against the superintendent; claims vs governor and AG dismissed for lack of case or controversy
Facial validity of § 304.230.1, .2, .7 (warrantless roving inspections)	Statutes permit suspicionless stops and thus facially violate Fourth Amendment	Statutes regulate commercial vehicles and are tailored for public safety and highway protection	Statutes are not facially invalid; can be applied constitutionally to participants in closely regulated commercial trucking industry (Burger test applies)
As-applied challenge by non-commercial operator (Calzone)	Calzone contends he is not in the closely regulated commercial trucking industry (e.g., may be a covered farm vehicle) so Burger does not apply to him	State says Missouri law incorporates federal commercial vehicle regs and subjects vehicles of certain weight to the scheme, bringing Calzone within the regulated class	Dismissal was erroneous as to injunctive/declaratory relief against superintendent; as-applied merits unresolved and remanded for factual/legal development
Suit for damages vs state official in official capacity under § 1983	Calzone sought nominal damages and injunctive/declaratory relief	State relied on Will to say official-capacity damages suit is effectively against the State and barred	Damages claim against the superintendent in official capacity is barred; injunctive/declaratory relief remains available (Ex parte Young)

Key Cases Cited

Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (standing requires causation and redressability)
Ex parte Young, 209 U.S. 123 (permits prospective relief against state officers enforcing unconstitutional laws)
New York v. Burger, 482 U.S. 691 (warrantless inspections constitutional in closely regulated industries if three-part test met)
United States v. Salerno, 481 U.S. 739 (facial challenge standard: no set of circumstances where law is valid)
Will v. Michigan Dept. of State Police, 491 U.S. 58 (state officials sued in official capacity are not "persons" for § 1983 damages)
United States v. Ruiz, 569 F.3d 355 (Eighth Circuit treating commercial trucking as closely regulated for warrantless inspections)
Digital Recognition Network v. Hutchinson, 803 F.3d 952 (standing/causation requires defendants have authority to enforce challenged provision)