Reams v. Irvin

561 F.3d 1258 (11th Cir. 2009)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

Fokes (D) obtained a warrant to determine whether the equines P kept on her land were being provided inadequate food and water in violation of the Georgia Humane Care for Equines Act. Medical Officer (VMO) employed by the United States Department of Agriculture as a field veterinarian, arrived at the farm. Dr. Loper determined that forty-six horses and three donkeys were not being provided with adequate food and water. D impounded those forty-nine equines. P was in Kansas and was not advised of her right to challenge the impoundment. P contested the impoundment and requested a hearing. Ds did not at that time advise P of her right to file a petition with the GDA. D insisted that P agree to a consent order, which imposed fines in connection with the care of her horses during the impoundment period and limited the number of equines P could keep on her farm. D issued an administrative order, citing P with failure to provide adequate food, water, and/or humane care to the impounded equines, directing her to reduce her herd to thirty equines, and assessing a fine of $74,000. After P received the administrative order, she was explicitly notified of her right to a hearing. On 28 February 2006, P filed a Petition for Agency Review with the GDA challenging the administrative order, including the impoundment of her horses. D informed P that it would sell her equines if she refused to sign the consent order. P filed an emergency petition in Fulton County Superior Court to stay the sale of her equines pending the administrative review. The court issued an order staying the sale and authorizing P to retrieve her horses from the impound facility, so long as she provided a written assurance of adequate care and posted a $47,360 bond for the impoundment costs. P retrieved her equines, whose condition, she alleged, had worsened during their impoundment. P then filed a §1983 complaint in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia. P then filed a motion to stay the administrative proceedings pending the determination of her constitutional claims in federal court. D dismissed P's petition for lack of jurisdiction. D issued a final order reversing and remanding on the jurisdictional issue but finding that P's challenge to the initial seizure of her horses was time-barred because the seizure occurred more than thirty days before she petitioned the agency for review on 28 February 2006. P filed a petition in Fulton County Superior Court seeking review of D's order disposing of her administrative challenges and alleging that D violated her procedural due process rights. Ds moved for summary judgment on P's § 1983 complaint. D issued a final order reversing and remanding on the jurisdictional issue but finding that P's challenge to the initial seizure of her horses was time-barred because the seizure occurred more than thirty days before she petitioned the agency for review on 28 February 2006. P filed a petition in Fulton County Superior Court seeking review of D's order disposing of her administrative challenges and alleging that D violated her procedural due process rights. Ds moved for summary judgment on P's § 1983 complaint. The district court granted the motion; P failed to demonstrate a constitutional violation and therefore, Ds were entitled to qualified immunity. P appealed.