United Pet Supply, Inc. v. City of Chattanooga, Tennessee
768 F.3d 464
| 6th Cir. | 2014Background
- In June 2010 McKamey (a private non-profit contracted by Chattanooga) investigated complaints at United Pet Supply’s mall store and found animals in overheated, unsanitary, and dehydrated conditions; a dead hamster was discovered. Two McKamey employees (Walsh and Nicholson) were commissioned as city special police officers; a third (Hurn) was not.
- Walsh and Nicholson (with state officer Burns and Hurn assisting) entered the store, seized 32 puppies and 55 exotic pets, and removed business records; McKamey marked the store’s pet-dealer permit as revoked.
- Pet Supply sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging (a) violation of procedural due process (no pre-deprivation hearing for seizure of animals, records, and permit) and (b) Fourth Amendment unlawful warrantless search/seizure. Defendants raised qualified immunity; McKamey also sued in official capacity.
- District court granted mixed summary judgment: permitted seizure of animals (consent to enter) but found factual disputes on seizures and denied qualified immunity; proceedings were appealed.
- Sixth Circuit held: (1) Walsh and Nicholson (as commissioned officers) may assert qualified immunity in their personal capacities; Hurn (non-commissioned private employee) may not; (2) Official-capacity defendants (McKamey and officers sued officially) may not assert qualified immunity; (3) On the merits: qualified immunity granted to Walsh and Nicholson for the animal seizure (due process and Fourth Amendment) and to Nicholson for permit/records claims where he had no role; but denied as to Walsh for the permit revocation (due process) and to Walsh for seizure of business records (Fourth Amendment).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether individual defendants may claim qualified immunity | Qualified immunity should not shield private actors who caused constitutional deprivations | Walsh/Nicholson: as commissioned special police officers they may; Hurn: private employee asserts immunity | Walsh & Nicholson (commissioned) may assert qualified immunity; Hurn (non‑commissioned McKamey employee) may not |
| Whether official-capacity defendants may assert qualified immunity | Qualified immunity available to all defendants | Defendants argued immunity for McKamey and official-capacity officers | Rejected — qualified immunity unavailable in official-capacity suits (entity-level suits) |
| Whether seizure of animals without pre-deprivation hearing violated procedural due process | Pet Supply: seizure required prior hearing | Defendants: exigent animal-welfare emergency justified immediate seizure | Seizure of animals did not violate due process; Walsh and Nicholson entitled to qualified immunity on that claim |
| Whether revocation of pet-dealer permit without any pre- or post-deprivation remedy violated due process | Pet Supply: revocation without any opportunity to challenge is unconstitutional | Defendants: relied on City Code and discretionary revocation authority | Revocation violated due process; Walsh denied qualified immunity on permit claim; Nicholson entitled to immunity (no role) |
| Whether warrantless seizure of animals and business records violated Fourth Amendment | Pet Supply: seizure of animals and records required a warrant absent exigency or plain view | Defendants: exigent circumstances and plain-view justified seizures | Animal seizure was justified by exigency — Walsh and Nicholson immune; business-records seizure not justified — Walsh not immune; Nicholson immune (did not seize records) |
Key Cases Cited
- Filarsky v. Delia, 132 S. Ct. 1657 (U.S. 2012) (private individuals performing public functions may sometimes get immunity)
- Richardson v. McKnight, 521 U.S. 399 (U.S. 1997) (private prison guards not entitled to qualified immunity)
- Malley v. Briggs, 475 U.S. 335 (U.S. 1986) (qualified immunity available to police officers)
- Kentucky v. Graham, 473 U.S. 159 (U.S. 1985) (qualified immunity unavailable in official-capacity suits against governmental entities)
- Saucier v. Katz, 533 U.S. 194 (U.S. 2001) (two-step qualified immunity analysis: constitutional violation then clearly established law)
- Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223 (U.S. 2009) (courts may exercise discretion in which qualified-immunity prong to address first)
- Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319 (U.S. 1976) (balancing test for procedural due process)
- Soldal v. Cook County, 506 U.S. 56 (U.S. 1992) (property seizure occurs when possessory interest is meaningfully interfered with)
- Coolidge v. New Hampshire, 403 U.S. 443 (U.S. 1971) (warrantless searches/seizures per se unreasonable absent an applicable exception, e.g., exigent circumstances)