Central Airlines, Inc. v. United States
138 F.3d 333
8th Cir.
1998
Check Treatment

*2 HANSEN, Before FAGG and Circuit review de novo the district We PIERSOL,* Judges, Judge. District qualified immunity, court’s and like denial view the assert district court we FAGG, Judge. Circuit incorporated allegations in the Dewey E. Towner owns Central Air South- protection and substantive due west, Inc., freight air commercial carrier complaint. counts of the carriers’ See id. Airlines, that leases its aircraft from Central in 266-67. also construe all reasonable We Agency Inc. the Federal allegations favorably to the ferences from (FAA), through its William D. inappropriate id. carriers. See Dismissal is Stewart, Hutchings, appears beyond “unless it doubt Camacho, Stuckey, Curry, John C. support can no set of ers] facts Timothy employees), Titus which would en [their constitutional] claim[s] brought civil actions (internal title Id. to relief.” at 266 [them] Air and Central Airlines Central omitted). quotations contend carriers). (collectively the Based on the em- to be are entitled ployees’ regulations, allegations challenged cause in the counts planes the FAA told the carriers their need- are to state a insufficient violation equipment fly in or ed additional known Merritt v. conditions, icing forecasted Reed, 126-27 threatened fine the carriers and up planes if To first take operations continued. We fines, Although protection broke air avoid the freight suspect classifica specified contracts and installed claims are often based * Dakota, Piersol, by designation. sitting L. The Honorable Lawrence United States District of South race, thing employees' simply more than Equal Protection made such as tions officials prohibits government a mistaken decision—an we must Clause also selectively applying accept, Hafley, the law in a dis 90 F.3d at 266. from see Hughes, criminatory way. pleading Snowden v. Instead the element of intentional discrimination, 88 L.Ed. 497 see *3 (1944); Regents 8, 401, v. Board Univ. Batra at 321 U.S. 64 S.Ct. at of of (8th Cir.1996). Neb., 717, 721 79 F.3d allegation an that chose is fatal to their employees singled allege the them protection claim. ignoring while other air out for enforcement Similarly, the carriers base their sub specified equip that also lacked the lines process stantive due claim on the application regulations Unequal of the ment. interpretation regulations. erroneous however, not violate question, in does ¶¶ (See 1.) 65; Compl. Pis.’ Am. 35 & Br. at pres protection unless “there is shown to be “Assuming this to be purpose ent in it an element of intentional or nothing mistaken is] more 8, ful discrimination.” 321 U.S. misjudgment than a of law” that falls far complaint, In 64 at 401. arbitrary, capricious flagrant short of the their enforce ers claim the based present conduct must be to establish a that interpreta ment decision on an “incorrect” process Corp. claim. Condor the law thus the “did tion of Paul, (8th 215, City v. St. 912 F.2d 220 prece FAA easily not follow discoverable Cir.1990). Although the carriers were on the (Pis.1 dent.” The carriers blunder, receiving end of a bureaucratic they by allegation what mean tell us immunity qualified are entitled to they in their where make incorrectness brief on this claim. clear their constitutional claims are anchored “employees!”] of an er [enforcement] We reverse and remand to the district [i]cing [FAA’s] roneous court to dismiss counts III and IV (Pis.’ [regulations.” Br. at Even when complaint amended failure the issue of on the carri state constitutional claims for which relief ers’ constitutional claims was submitted be granted. can be low, the district court wanted the carriers’ case,” explain your counsel to “the essence of PIERSOL, Judge, dissenting. words; you stating alleged other haven’t “[i]n respectfully majority’s I disagree with the improper religious or some other racial and remand this case to decision reverse added), (emphasis motive” and counsel an court. the liberal stan Under district 18-19.) (Hr’g. Tr. at Al swered “[n]o.” pleading, dards of notice the carriers need in though we find elsewhere the carriers’ only plain give “a short and statement of the complaint allegation an that relief,” [they] showing are entitled to good in “did not act faith” Fed.R.Civ.P..8(a)(2). Gibson, Conley v. ¶ 48), allegation pleaded nor was neither 99, 102-03, 41, 47, 2 355 U.S. 78 S.Ct. incorporated equal protection in the carriers’ (1957) (all require is Rules count same is also true substan plaintiffs fair notice to defendant what count), we read tive due cannot rests); grounds upon claim is and which it an into the count that is not there: 909, Mangan Weinberger, v. 911 School, High Bauchman 132 v. West Cir.1988), cert. (10th. Cir.1997); 550 Cannon v. F.3d 793 L.Ed.2d University Chicago, 1110 648 through Despite key require 35 of the Amend- “the plaintiffs]] allege Complaint, un the carriers set forth course ment [that Batra, lawful, discrimination,’’ by the 79 of conduct undertaken selectively recognition against the carriers F.3d at and the carriers’ ees to enforce unlawful, in- icing regulations. The carriers “must intentional dis 4),- through into corporated paragraphs in crimination” Br. at nowhere claim, III, they allege any the substantive due claim do Count equal protection and into Count PERKINS, Appellee, that agree I do not James paragraph 35 to the in

isolated reference interpretation of “incorrect” COMMUNICATIONS, U S WEST legal that requires the conclusion the law Appellant. essentially no more and TV negligence claims. Read context than material, paragraph preceding with the Court of United States conveys that the FAA em- the information prosecu- persisted in their selective until June tion of the carriers Submitted Jan. day Law convened an Administrative *4 5, hearing FAA’s civil action against Only then did the the carriers. finally interpreta- that their admit icing regulations

tion and enforcement Taking

was baseless. allegations in

through 35 and the additional as we on a must do

motion to dismiss under Federal Rule of 12(b)(6), I conclude that

Civil Procedure alleged sufficiently that

carriers arbitrarily, capriciously, acted

flagrantly required as to state a substantive that the FAA

due intentionally purposefully

ees discrimi- required

nated equal protection claim.

state an are not entitled to

qualified immunity. The carriers specific

claims for violations of majority dispute

rights, the does not that the

law of substantive due clearly established at the time

the FAA acted in and rea- position of the FAA

sonable officials known that their con- would have violate such

duct would Waddell Cir.1997). Forney,

Accordingly, I affirm the district would denying

court’s Order the motion to dismiss qualified immunity.