Opinion ID: 2734145
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Animals

Text: Pet Supply argues that the defendants-appellants violated a clearly established right to a hearing prior to the seizure of their animals. Pet Supply does not argue that the post-seizure hearing was not sufficiently prompt or otherwise did not comply with due process; it simply argues that the defendants-appellants were obliged to provide a hearing before seizing the animals. “A fundamental requirement of due process is the opportunity to be heard. It is an opportunity which must be granted at a meaningful time and in a meaningful manner.” Armstrong v. Manzo, 380 U.S. 545, 552 (1965) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). We apply the well-known balancing test from Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319 (1976), to determine if due process was afforded, and we consider: “the private interest that will be affected by the official action,” “the risk of an erroneous deprivation of such interest through the procedures used, and the probable value, if any, of additional or substitute procedural No. 13-5181 United Pet Supply, Inc. v. City of Chattanooga et al. Page 22 safeguards,” and “the Government’s interest, including the function involved and the fiscal and administrative burdens that the additional or substitute procedural requirement would entail.” Id. at 335. Usually, due process requires that a hearing is mandated before the deprivation of property or liberty occurs.4 Zinermon v. Burch, 494 U.S. 113, 127 (1990). However, we have held that the failure to provide a pre-deprivation hearing does not violate due process in situations where a government official reasonably believed that immediate action was necessary to eliminate an emergency situation and the government provided adequate post-deprivation process. See Harris v. City of Akron, 20 F.3d 1396, 1403–05 (6th Cir. 1994) (the demolition of a home without notice and a hearing did not violate due process where the building inspector believed that the home was “dangerously close” to falling onto the street and another home); Mithrandir v. Brown, 37 F.3d 1499, at –3 (6th Cir. 1994) (table decision) (confiscation of a prisoner’s typewriter without a hearing was justified by an emergency because two prison guards had been assaulted in the prior month and one had been stabbed with a part from an inmate’s typewriter). And most relevant to the instant situation, in an unpublished per curiam opinion we affirmed a district court’s conclusion that a government official’s seizure of “marauding cattle” without a prior hearing did not violate due process. The cattle had escaped from their land and were running wild in the community: trampling gardens, eating wheat from nearby fields, running onto the road and causing car accidents, and charging at people. Lowery v. Faires, 57 F. Supp. 2d 483, 492–94 (E.D. Tenn. 1998), aff’d, 181 F.3d 102 (6th Cir. 1999) (table decision). Local officials served an impoundment notice on the farmer who owned the cattle and then seized the cattle without providing a hearing. The district court concluded that the failure to provide a pre-deprivation hearing did not violate due process where taking the time to provide a pre-deprivation hearing would leave the animals and the public exposed to an emergency 4 Under Parratt, “[i]f an official’s conduct would otherwise deprive an individual of procedural due process but is ‘random and unauthorized,’ the Parratt doctrine allows the state to avoid liability by providing adequate remedies after the deprivation occurs.” Daily Servs., LLC v. Valentino, 756 F.3d 893, 901 (6th Cir. 2014) (quoting Parratt v. Taylor, 451 U.S. 527, 541 (1981)). The Parratt doctrine does not present “an exception to the Mathews balancing test, but rather an application of that test to the unusual case in which one of the variables in the Mathews equation—the value of predeprivation safeguards—is negligible in preventing the kind of deprivation at issue.” Zinermon, 494 U.S. at 129. The district court concluded that the actions of the McKamey employees were not random and unauthorized and so the Parratt rule does not apply to this situation; neither party challenges that conclusion on appeal. No. 13-5181 United Pet Supply, Inc. v. City of Chattanooga et al. Page 23 situation. Id. We held that “we are not persuaded that the district court erred in granting summary judgment to defendants” and affirmed on the reasoning of the district court. Lowery, 181 F.3d 102. Although these cases did not apply the Mathews balancing test, the conclusion that the failure to provide a pre-deprivation hearing does not violate due process likely reflects that the governments’ strong interest in immediately ending an emergency situation places a heavy thumb on the scale. Applying the Mathews balancing test, we conclude that the seizure of the animals did not violate due process. First, we agree with Pet Supply that an important property interest was affected by the seizure. “[T]he property interest in a person’s means of livelihood is one of the most significant that an individual can possess.” Ramsey v. Bd. of Educ. of Whitley Cnty., 844 F.2d 1268, 1273 (6th Cir. 1988). Although Pet Supply has a strong interest in not being deprived of the incomegenerating animals, we note that Pet Supply was not totally deprived of its property; while Pet Supply lost control over the animals for multiple months, the animals were eventually all returned to the company. Second, the risk of an erroneous deprivation was low due to the participation of trained animal-welfare officers in the seizure, and there is little value to additional procedural safeguards. Compare Reams v. Irvin, 561 F.3d 1258, 1264 (11th Cir. 2009) (holding that “the risk of an erroneous deprivation . . . was relatively low” when a veterinarian and trained inspectors observed conditions at a farm, concluded that donkeys and horses were in unsafe conditions, and removed the animals without a prior hearing), with Siebert v. Severino, 256 F.3d 648, 660 (7th Cir. 2001) (holding that “the risk of an erroneous deprivation . . . through the procedures used is great” when a “volunteer investigator who apparently lacked sufficient knowledge about horses to determine whether appropriate care was given” ordered the removal of horses from a home without prior notice or a hearing). Additionally, it is difficult to see the value of the additional procedural safeguard of a hearing prior to the seizure, given that Pet Supply requested a temporary restraining order in the midst of the animal seizure and its request was denied. No. 13-5181 United Pet Supply, Inc. v. City of Chattanooga et al. Page 24 Finally, we conclude that there was a great governmental interest in the immediate seizure of the animals without pausing for a prior hearing. Pet Supply does not dispute that when the McKamey officials arrived, the animals had feces and urine matted in their fur, water bottles were empty, and a dead hamster was found in the cage of which its staff was unaware. Pet Supply does not dispute that the temperature was at or above eighty-five degrees for the entirety of the McKamey employees’ time at the store and that the air conditioner had been broken for weeks. Pet Supply explained that the state of affairs was the result of the McKamey employees arriving while Pet Supply workers were in the midst of their daily cleaning routine, but Pet Supply has not introduced any evidence that the degree of filth was normal, nor has Pet Supply disputed the evidence that its employees arrived over an hour before the McKamey employees arrived and that the employees had not provided food or water to the animals during that time. As in Lowery v. Faires, the government has a strong desire to eliminate immediately a situation that posed a danger to the animals. Additionally, Pet Supply received a hearing in city court nine days after the seizure on the violations of city animal code and the city court had the power to order the return of the animals. Cf. Flatford v. City of Monroe, 17 F.3d 162, 165, 169–71 (6th Cir. 1994) (although a reasonable building inspector could conclude that an immediate threat to the safety of residents existed given severe “dilapidation and disrepair” and conditions that posed “an immediate risk of electrocution or fire” that justified evacuation and demolition without a prior hearing, the failure to provide any post-deprivation hearing violated a clearly established constitutional right). On balance, given the low risk of an erroneous deprivation and the minimal value of additional safeguards, the great governmental interest in immediately removing the animals from an overly hot, filthy environment, and the fact that a hearing was provided nine days later, we conclude that the seizure of the animals did not violate due process. Because the seizure of the animals without a prior hearing did not violate due process, Walsh and Nicholson are entitled to qualified immunity on this claim. No. 13-5181 United Pet Supply, Inc. v. City of Chattanooga et al. Page 25