Summary
The Washington Supreme Court considers whether pharmacy inspectors were entitled to qualified immunity from a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claim alleging that fabricated inspection findings led to the summary suspension of the plaintiff’s pharmacy and professional licenses without prior notice or a hearing. The court holds that the evidence created a genuine issue of material fact regarding whether the inspectors fabricated an emergency and caused a due process violation, and that they were not entitled to qualified immunity. The court also holds that the plaintiff exhausted his administrative remedies despite waiving available expedited and adjudicative hearings because the agency entered a final agreed order.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether pharmacy inspectors may be liable under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for causing a procedural due process violation by knowingly or recklessly fabricating an emergency that led to the summary suspension of Jones's licenses without a predeprivation hearing.
- Whether the inspectors were entitled to qualified immunity on Jones's § 1983 due process claim.
- Whether the exhaustion doctrine barred Jones's state tort claims because he waived opportunities for expedited or regular administrative hearings.
Holdings
- A government investigator may cause a procedural due process violation under § 1983 when the investigator wrongfully fabricates an emergency and knows or reasonably should know that the fabrication will cause decision makers to impose a summary deprivation of a protected property interest without a predeprivation hearing.
- Wene and Jeppesen were not entitled to qualified immunity at summary judgment because the alleged conduct—knowingly and arbitrarily changing inspection scores to fabricate an emergency—violated a clearly established due process right, and the evidence created a genuine issue of material fact as to whether they engaged in that conduct.
- Jones exhausted his administrative remedies because the Board's acceptance and entry of the agreed order constituted a final agency determination; waiving expedited and adjudicative hearing opportunities did not prevent exhaustion.
Key quotations
“When a summary procedure is based on a fabricated emergency, the procedure is inherently defective.” (350-351)
“As long as an aggrieved party takes one of the available procedural paths toward a final agency determination, as Jones did here, there is no failure to exhaust administrative remedies.” (357-358)
Factual background
The Washington State Board of Pharmacy inspected Jones's pharmacy four times between December 1998 and August 1999, assigning scores of 79, 94, 48, and 56. Jones alleged that the inspectors arbitrarily increased the severity of deductions, made errors in the reports, and harassed him during the later inspections despite improvements in the pharmacy's condition. Based on the later unsatisfactory scores, the Board summarily suspended his licenses and closed the pharmacy without prior notice or a hearing. Jones later entered an agreed order revoking the pharmacy location license and suspending his professional license for five years.
Procedural history
The Board of Pharmacy summarily suspended Jones's pharmacy and professional licenses without prior notice or a hearing. Jones later entered an agreed order revoking his pharmacy location license and suspending his professional license for five years, while expressly preserving his right to sue. The trial court granted partial summary judgment, and the Court of Appeals reversed the denial of summary judgment, holding that the inspectors were not liable for a due process violation and that Jones failed to exhaust administrative remedies. The Supreme Court granted review and reversed those holdings.
Remand instructions
The Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals' holdings concerning the § 1983 claim and exhaustion of administrative remedies. The remaining claims were to proceed consistently with the Supreme Court's decision; the court did not decide whether exhaustion was required for the tort claims.