Opinion ID: 78310
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Right to Pre-deprivation Hearing

Text: The fundamental requirement of due process is the opportunity to be heard `at a meaningful time and in a meaningful manner.' Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319, 333, 96 S.Ct. 893, 902, 47 L.Ed.2d 18 (1976) (quoting Armstrong v. Manzo, 380 U.S. 545, 552, 85 S.Ct. 1187, 1191, 14 L.Ed.2d 62 (1965)); Cryder v. Oxendine, 24 F.3d 175, 177 (11th Cir.1994) (Due process entitles an individual to notice and some form of hearing before state action may finally deprive him or her of a property interest.). In this case, Reams contends that a hearing prior to the impoundment of her equines was required to satisfy due process. We disagree. Although the Due Process Clause generally requires notice and an opportunity to be heard before the government seizes one's property, see, e.g., Quik Cash Pawn & Jewelry, Inc. v. Sheriff of Broward County, 279 F.3d 1316, 1322 (11th Cir.2002), the Supreme Court has rejected the proposition that `at a meaningful time and in a meaningful manner' always requires the State to provide a hearing prior to the initial deprivation of property. Parratt v. Taylor, 451 U.S. 527, 540-41, 101 S.Ct. 1908, 1915-16, 68 L.Ed.2d 420 (1981) (noting that its rejection of such a rule is based in part on the impracticability in some cases of providing any preseizure hearing under a state-authorized procedure, and the assumption that at some time a full and meaningful hearing will be available), overruled on other grounds by Daniels v. Williams, 474 U.S. 327, 106 S.Ct. 662, 88 L.Ed.2d 662 (1986). Rather, because due process is a flexible concept that varies with the particular circumstances of each case, we must apply the balancing test articulated in Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319, 96 S.Ct. 893, 47 L.Ed.2d 18, to determine whether pre-deprivation process was required in this case. Grayden, 345 F.3d at 1232-33; see also Bailey v. Bd. of County Com'rs of Alachua County, Fla., 956 F.2d 1112, 1123 n. 12 (11th Cir.1992) (The need for some form of predeprivation hearing is determined from balancing the competing interests at stake.). Under Mathews, the specific dictates of due process in any given case are determined by considering: (1) the private interest that will be affected by the official action; (2) the risk of an erroneous deprivation of such interest through the procedures used and the probable value, if any, of additional or substitute procedural safeguards; and (3) the government's interest, including the function involved and the fiscal and administrative burdens that the additional or substitute procedural requirement would entail. 424 U.S. at 335, 96 S.Ct. at 903. While Reams' interest in maintaining her property rights to the impounded equines was not insubstantial, see, e.g., Porter v. DiBlasio, 93 F.3d 301, 306 (7th Cir.1996) ([T]here can be no dispute that an animal owner has a substantial interest in maintaining his rights in a seized animal. Such is especially the case with potential income-generating animals such as horses.), given the standards and procedures for inspection and impoundment prescribed by the Act, [6] and the fact that the state largely complied with these procedures, we find that the risk of an erroneous deprivation in this case was relatively low. [7] See Grayden, 345 F.3d at 1234-35 (standards and procedures for inspection and condemnation under city code, which authorized enforcement officer to enter and inspect building to determine its condition, provided protection against risk of erroneous deprivation); cf. Siebert v. Severino, 256 F.3d 648, 660 (7th Cir.2001) (risk of erroneous deprivation of interest in horses was great where state used volunteer investigator who apparently lacked sufficient knowledge about horses to determine whether appropriate care was given). Insofar as the decision to impound Reams' equines was based upon an examination of the equines and an assessment of their condition by a veterinarian, we find that an evidentiary hearing prior to impoundment was of limited potential value and thus agree with the district court that a post-deprivation, versus a pre-deprivation, hearing was unlikely to spawn significant factual errors. R5-85 at 13. See Memphis Light, Gas and Water Div. v. Craft, 436 U.S. 1, 19, 98 S.Ct. 1554, 1565, 56 L.Ed.2d 30 (1978) (advance procedural safeguards not constitutionally required where the procedures underlying the decision to act are sufficiently reliable to minimize the risk of erroneous determination). Moreover, as demonstrated by the GDA's immediate seizure of Reams' equines, requiring additional procedural safeguards in the form of a hearing prior to impoundment would run the risk of causing further harm to animals who are being deprived of adequate food and water. Cf. Siebert, 256 F.3d at 660. Finally, the state's interest in preventing the inhumane treatment of animals is undeniably substantial and would be significantly compromised if the state were to require a hearing before impounding malnourished equines. Based on the foregoing, we conclude that a balancing of the competing interests in this case demonstrates that a pre-deprivation hearing was not mandated by the Due Process Clause.