425 F.Supp.3d 793
E.D. Ky.2019Background
- Plaintiffs Gary and Mary West owned Maximum Security, which crossed the finish line first in the 2019 Kentucky Derby. After post-race objections by two jockeys, Kentucky stewards reviewed the race and disqualified Maximum Security, placing him 18th and declaring Country House the winner.
- The Wests submitted a Notice of Appeal and requested documents; the Kentucky Horse Racing Commission’s general counsel replied that the stewards’ disqualification determination is not subject to appeal under applicable regulations.
- The Wests filed suit in federal court seeking (a) judicial review and reversal of the stewards’ decision under KRS Chapter 13B and (b) § 1983 claims alleging procedural-due-process violations, including a vagueness challenge to the Commission’s foul regulation (810 KAR 1:016 § 12).
- The Commission’s regulations (810 KAR 1:017 § 4) state that stewards’ findings and disqualification decisions are final and not subject to appeal; Chapter 13B authorizes review only of agency "final orders" arising from formal administrative hearings.
- The district court held it had supplemental jurisdiction over the state-law review claims but concluded the stewards’ disqualification was not a Chapter 13B "final order" because no formal adjudicatory hearing occurred; thus Counts I–V seeking reversal under KRS 13B.150 were dismissed.
- The court also dismissed the § 1983 due-process claims (procedural and vagueness) because the Wests failed to show deprivation of a constitutionally protected property, liberty, or life interest (no entitlement to Derby winnings), and violations of state regulations alone do not constitute federal due-process violations.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether stewards' disqualification is reviewable under KRS § 13B.150 | West: Chapter 13B allows judicial review of the stewards’ "final order" and supersedes conflicting regs | Defs: 810 KAR 1:017 § 4 makes stewards' race determinations final and nonappealable; no "administrative hearing" occurred | Court: Not reviewable under Chapter 13B because stewards' decision did not arise from a formal administrative hearing; Counts I–V dismissed |
| Whether federal court may hear state-law review claims | West: Federal court has jurisdiction (supplemental or diversity) over related state claims | Defs: State statute requires circuit-court filing; argues federal forum inappropriate | Court: Federal court has supplemental jurisdiction; exercise of jurisdiction appropriate but claims fail on merits under state law/regulation |
| Procedural due process claim re stewards' conduct and failure to follow regulations | West: Stewards violated Sections 5, 12, 17 and denied adequate process | Defs: Failures to follow state regs do not automatically create a federal due-process violation | Court: Dismissed — plaintiffs did not show deprivation of protected property/liberty interest; regulatory violations alone insufficient |
| Vagueness challenge to commission foul regulation (Section 12) | West: Section 12 is unconstitutionally vague, so notice and enforcement are arbitrary | Defs: Section 12 affords discretion and is not so vague as to violate due process | Court: Dismissed — void-for-vagueness challenge fails because Wests did not establish deprivation of a protected interest; civil vagueness standard less stringent |
Key Cases Cited
- Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375 (1994) (federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction)
- City of Chicago v. Int'l Coll. of Surgeons, 522 U.S. 156 (1997) (supplemental jurisdiction may include state statutory review of local agency action)
- Will v. Michigan Dep’t of State Police, 491 U.S. 58 (1989) (§ 1983 does not permit suits against states as "persons")
- Accardi v. Shaughnessy, 347 U.S. 260 (1954) (agencies are expected to follow their own rules; not rooted in Due Process Clause)
- Grayned v. City of Rockford, 408 U.S. 104 (1972) (void-for-vagueness doctrine requires fair notice of prohibited conduct)
- Village of Hoffman Estates v. Flipside, Hoffman Estates, Inc., 455 U.S. 489 (1982) (vagueness standard is less stringent for civil regulations)
- Hafer v. Melo, 502 U.S. 21 (1991) (official-capacity damages suits are treated as suits against the State)
- Bd. of Regents v. Roth, 408 U.S. 564 (1972) (property interests for due process purposes arise from state law entitlements)