Auburn Medical Center, Inc. v. Peters
| Decision Date | 12 December 1996 |
| Docket Number | Civil Action No. 95-D-1053-N. |
| Citation | 953 F.Supp. 1518 |
| Parties | AUBURN MEDICAL CENTER, INC., Plaintiff, v. J. Elbert PETERS, etc., et al., Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Middle District of Alabama |
David J. Llewellyn, Atlanta, GA, K. Anderson Nelms, Montgomery, AL, and Hugh V. Smith, Jr., Montgomery, AL, for plaintiff.
Billington M. Garrett, Robert M. Weinberg, Office of the Attorney General, Montgomery, AL, John V. Denson, II, Opelika AL, and James E. Williams, Montgomery, AL, for defendants.
DE MENT, District Judge.
Before the court is defendants Walter Smith ("Smith") and J. Elbert Peters' ("Peters") motion, filed October 2, 1995, to dismiss the complaint. The plaintiff, Auburn Medical Center, Inc., responded in opposition on December 5, 1995 ("Pl.'s Br."). After careful consideration of the arguments of counsel, the relevant case law and the record as a whole, the court finds that the motion is due to be granted.
In the three-count complaint, the plaintiff sets forth violations of 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Pl.'s Compl. ¶¶ 63-64), the Racketeering Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act ("RICO"), 18 U.S.C. § 1961 et seq. (Pl.'s Compl. ¶¶ 64-69) and the Federal All-Writs Act (Pl.'s Compl. ¶¶ 63-64). The defendants have moved to dismiss said claims. The court will address separately each claim below.
At the outset, the Court finds that the plaintiff does have standing to bring claims pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The defendants are correct in stating that the plaintiff, a corporation, "is not a `citizen' within the meaning of the privileges and immunities clause." Grosjean v. American Press Co., 297 U.S. 233, 244, 56 S.Ct. 444, 446, 80 L.Ed. 660 (1936). Thus, a corporation cannot assert a violation of the privileges and immunities clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. See L.S.T. v. Crow, 49 F.3d 679, 682 n. 6 (11th Cir.1995) (citing Hague v. Committee For Industrial Organization, 307 U.S. 496, 514, 59 S.Ct. 954, 963, 83 L.Ed. 1423 (1939)). However, the Supreme Court of the United States has held that a corporation is a "person" within the meaning of the due process clause, which is the clause involved here. Grosjean, 297 U.S. at 244, 56 S.Ct. at 446-47 (citing Covington & L. Turnpike Road Co. v. Sandford, 164 U.S. 578, 592, 17 S.Ct. 198, 203-04, 41 L.Ed. 560 (1896); Smyth v. Ames, 169 U.S. 466, 522, 18 S.Ct. 418, 424, 42 L.Ed. 819 (1898)). Accordingly, the plaintiff has standing to sue under § 1983 for violations of its due process rights.
The defendants also contend that the plaintiff's § 1983 claim against the defendants in their official capacities is barred by the Eleventh Amendment. The Eleventh Amendment bars any demand for equitable or damages relief against the defendants based upon state law. See Puerto Rico Aqueduct & Sewer Authority v. Metcalf & Eddy, Inc., 506 U.S. 139, 113 S.Ct. 684, 121 L.Ed.2d 605 (1993); Will v. Michigan Department of State Police, 491 U.S. 58, 109 S.Ct. 2304, 105 L.Ed.2d 45 (1989); Kentucky v. Graham, 473 U.S. 159, 105 S.Ct. 3099, 87 L.Ed.2d 114 (1985); Pennhurst State School & Hosp. v. Halderman, 465 U.S. 89, 104 S.Ct. 900, 79 L.Ed.2d 67 (1984); Quern v. Jordan, 440 U.S. 332, 99 S.Ct. 1139, 59 L.Ed.2d 358 (1979); Alabama v. Pugh, 438 U.S. 781, 98 S.Ct. 3057, 57 L.Ed.2d 1114 (1978); McFarland v. Folsom, 854 F.Supp. 862 (M.D.Ala.1994); Williams v. Adkinson, 792 F.Supp. 755 (M.D.Ala.1992), aff'd, 987 F.2d 774 (11th Cir.1993). After careful review of the complaint, the court finds that the plaintiff has made no claim against the defendants for damages in their official capacities, nor has it made any demand for equitable or monetary relief against the defendants in their official capacities based upon state law. See Pl.'s Br. at 44. Therefore, the court finds that the Eleventh Amendment does not bar the plaintiff's suit.
The plaintiff's § 1983 claim against the defendants centers around a letter sent by Smith, as director of the Alabama State Health Planning and Development Agency ("SHPDA"), requesting the plaintiff to "show cause" as to why plaintiff's Certificate of Need should not be revoked. This letter reads as follows:
Dear Mr. Paddock:
The Certificate of Need cited above was issued on December 7, 1992. You were required, at a minimum, to make a firm committment [sic] or obligation toward this project within twelve months of that date. In November, 1993, you submitted a construction contract to fulfill this requirement. The effect of this submission was to extend your CON to the extent that you complied with the terms of the contract.
The contract called for construction to begin 180 days from the date the contract was signed. According to our calculations, the deadline for beginning construction was May 1, 1994. As of that date, no construction had begun. A site visit made on May 11, 1994, confirmed that no construction had begun. Furthermore we found no evidence of your having obtained any of a number of licenses, permits, or approvals from State and City governmental agencies required to begin construction. A second visit on May 27, 1994 showed no change in the conditions observed at the earlier site visit date.
Based on this information, we hereby request that you appear within ten (10) days of the receipt of this letter to show cause why this Agency should not declare your CON null and void for your failure to comply with the terms, rules, and policies of issuance.
Please bring at a minimum, the following documents: bond with construction company, approval by Department of Public Health of architectural drawings/plans, building permit, documentation of financing agreement for construction, documentation on ownership or lease of property or other right to build on property, zoning variance for construction of facility, all required approvals by the appropriate City Planning Commission, and any other documentation which you deem appropriate.
You may call our office to arrange an appointment.
Sincerely,
The plaintiff contends that Smith was not authorized to issue such a "show cause" letter. According to the plaintiff, the issuance of this letter violates its procedural and substantive due process rights.1
As the plaintiff correctly notes, the threshold determination for the Court is whether the plaintiff has alleged that it has been deprived of a property or liberty interest which is sufficient to invoke the protection of the due process clause. See Board of Regents v. Roth, 408 U.S. 564, 569-71, 92 S.Ct. 2701, 2705-06, 33 L.Ed.2d 548 (1972). The Court assumes the plaintiff is correct in its assertion that it has a protected property interest stemming from the certificate of need granted by SHPDA. Nevertheless, the plaintiff fails to state a claim for relief because, even assuming all the facts in the complaint to be true, the plaintiff has not alleged it was deprived of a protected property interest.2 The plaintiff was, at no time, deprived of its protected right—the right to proceed with the construction of the Hospital. Accordingly, the Court finds that the plaintiff's § 1983 claims are due to be dismissed.3
The plaintiff contends that it has been injured by a RICO scheme "engaged in by and between East Alabama Health Care Authority, Inc., and ... [SHPDA] acting through defendants Smith and Peters." Pl.'s Br. at 41. To the extent the plaintiff attempts to state a claim against SHPDA or defendants Smith and Peters in their official capacities, its claims are due to be dismissed.4 As a matter of law, state agencies cannot, alone or through their agents, form the requisite state of mind necessary to sustain a RICO claim. See Pine Ridge Recycling, Inc. v. Butts Co., Ga., 855 F.Supp. 1264, 1272-74 (M.D.Ga.1994). Further, any such claims are likely barred by the Eleventh Amendment. See Carr v. City of Florence, 916 F.2d 1521, 1524 (11th Cir.1990) (); see also Hutto v. Finney, 437 U.S. 678, 693, 98 S.Ct. 2565, 2574-75, 57 L.Ed.2d 522 (1978) (citing Fitzpatrick v. Bitzer, 427 U.S. 445, 96 S.Ct. 2666, 49 L.Ed.2d 614 (1976)) (considering issue of waiver).
Thus, the issue before the Court is whether the plaintiff has stated a RICO claim against defendants Smith and Peters in their individual capacities. The Court's review of the complaint discloses no allegations which could be interpreted to state a RICO claim against Peters in his individual capacity. Accordingly, any RICO claims against Peters are due to be dismissed.
Smith contends that he cannot be held liable under the doctrines of absolute and qualified immunity. Smith asserts that the issuance of the show cause letter was a judicial or quasi-judicial act, and thus, he should be immune from suit based on Butz v. Economou, 438 U.S. 478, 98 S.Ct. 2894, 57 L.Ed.2d 895 (1978). In Butz the Court held that agency personnel performing functions analogous to a judge or prosecutor may be entitled to absolute immunity. Id. at 512-16, 98 S.Ct. at 2913-16. When an official's position requires him or her to frequently make controversial decisions (which in turn may incite retaliatory lawsuits for money damages) and there are adequate avenues for review of those decisions, often, nothing short of absolute immunity will assure that the official can perform his or her duties free of harassment or intimidation. Id.; see also Rindley v. Gallagher, 890 F.Supp. 1540, 1554 (S.D.Fla.1995) (). However, the Court need not determine whether Smith's action was the "initiation of administrative and judicial" proceedings as Smith contends, or, whether there are insufficient checks on Smith's authority to support a finding of absolute immunity as the plaintiff contends, because the Court finds that Smith is clearly immune from the plaintiff's RICO claim under the doctrine of qualified immunity.5
Qualified...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Dept. of Public Works v. LG INDUS.
...(D.C.1991). However, the All Writs Act does not constitute a concurrent basis for original jurisdiction. See Auburn Med. Ctr., Inc. v. Peters, 953 F.Supp. 1518, 1524 (M.D.Ala. 1996); Gullickson v. Southwest Airlines Pilots' Ass'n, 931 F.Supp. 1534 (D.Utah 1995), aff'd, 87 F.3d 1176 (1996). ......