Summary
In *Serna v. Denver Police Department*, the Tenth Circuit held that § 10114(b) of the 2018 Farm Bill—which prohibits states from blocking interstate transportation of hemp—does not create an implied private cause of action. The court found the statute lacks "rights-creating language" because it focuses on regulated states and tribes rather than conferring a right on a protected class like hemp farmers. The district court properly dismissed the complaint under Rule 12(b)(6) and did not abuse its discretion in denying leave to amend, as any amendment would be futile and the request was vague. Key topics: implied private right of action, Farm Bill, interstate hemp transportation, Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal, and futility of amendment.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether § 10114(b) of the 2018 Farm Bill creates an implied private cause of action for hemp farmers to sue state officials who allegedly violate that provision.
- Whether the district court abused its discretion in denying Serna leave to amend his complaint to add other potentially viable claims.
Holdings
- Section 10114(b) does not create a private cause of action because its text focuses on regulated entities (states and tribes) and lacks rights-creating language that would confer a right on a protected class of persons.
- The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying leave to amend because amendment would be futile and Serna did not properly request it.
Key quotations
“To establish that § 10114(b) authorizes a private cause of action, Serna must show that Congress intended such authorization. Alexander v. Sandoval, 532 U.S. 275, 286–87 (2001). Specifically, he must show that the statute 'displays an intent to create not just a private right but also a private remedy.' Id. at 286.” (at 5)
“Sandoval makes clear that such language, which 'focus[es] on the person regulated rather than the individuals protected,' does not imply 'an intent to confer rights on a particular class of persons.' 532 U.S. at 289 (quoting California v. Sierra Club, 451 U.S. 287, 294 (1981)).” (at 6)
“The statute addressed in Cannon, for instance—§ 901(a) of Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972—referenced a protected class of persons subject to discriminatory educational practices: 'No person . . . shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in . . . any education program or activity receiving [f]ederal financial assistance.' Id. at 681–82 (emphasis added) (quoting 20 U.S.C. § 1681(a)).” (at 7)
“Under these circumstances, the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying leave to amend. Brooks, 985 F.3d at 1283 (explaining that 'bare requests for leave to amend do not rise to the status of a motion and do not put the issue before the district court').” (at 10)
Factual background
Serna, a licensed hemp farmer in Texas, was traveling from Denver to Texas with 32 hemp plant clones. At a security checkpoint, he produced certificates showing the plants contained less than 0.3% THC, compliant with the 2018 Farm Bill. Despite this, Denver Police Officer Anselmo Jaramillo confiscated the plants, citing a department policy to confiscate plants containing any amount of THC. Serna sued under § 10114(b) of the 2018 Farm Bill, alleging the confiscation violated the statute's restriction on state laws prohibiting interstate transportation of hemp.
Procedural history
Serna filed a complaint asserting a single claim under § 10114(b) of the 2018 Farm Bill. Defendants moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6). A magistrate judge recommended granting the motion, and the district court adopted that recommendation, dismissing the complaint with prejudice. Serna appealed.