Webster v. Moquin
| Decision Date | 20 November 2001 |
| Docket Number | No. 3:98 CV 01740(CFD).,3:98 CV 01740(CFD). |
| Citation | 175 F.Supp.2d 315 |
| Parties | Robert WEBSTER, D/B/A R & B Webster Live Poultry, Plaintiff, v. Gabriel F. MOQUIN and Bruce A. Sherman, Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Connecticut |
v.
Gabriel F. MOQUIN and Bruce A. Sherman, Defendants.
Page 316
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
Page 317
John R. Williams, Williams & Pattis, New Haven, CT, for Robert Webster.
Richard F. Webb, Mark P. Kindall, Attorney General's Office Hartford, CT, for Gabriel F. Moquin, Bruce A. Sherman.
DRONEY, District Judge.
The plaintiff brings this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that the defendants,
Page 318
Gabriel F. Moquin, Deputy Director of the Bureau of Regulation and Inspection for the Connecticut Department of Agriculture ("CDA"), and Bruce Sherman, Director of the Bureau of Regulation and Inspection for the CDA and acting State Veterinarian, deprived him of his property without due process of law in violation of the constitutions of the United States and Connecticut and without just compensation in violation of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution. The plaintiff seeks compensatory and punitive damages, as well as attorney's fees.
The defendants have moved for summary judgment on the following bases: (1) there are no genuine issues of material fact that they did not violate the plaintiff's constitutional rights and (2) they are entitled to qualified immunity as a matter of law. The motion for summary judgment [Document # 31] is GRANTED.
I. Background1
The plaintiff, Robert Webster, operated R & B Webster Live Poultry in Lebanon, Connecticut. The plaintiff's business involved transporting poultry from farms in Connecticut, Vermont, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, and New York, to markets mainly in New York City.
On February 2, 1998, the plaintiff delivered poultry to two markets in New York City. On February 3, 1998, employees of the New York State Department of Agriculture and Markets, Division of Animal Industry, collected tracheal culture samples from the poultry. The samples were analyzed and a report was issued indicating that two birds tested positive for the avian influenza virus.2
On March 26, 1998, the New York Department of Agriculture and Markets sent a letter to the defendant Sherman and Dr. Lech Szkudlarek, a Veterinary Medical Officer of the United States Department of Agriculture ("USDA"), informing them of the New York test results. On April 3, 1998, Dr. Szkudlarek inspected the plaintiff's property and took "environmental" samples from crates used by the plaintiff for transporting poultry to market. Certain of those samples also tested positive for the presence of the virus. As a result, Sherman recommended to the defendant Moquin the imposition of a quarantine of all birds on the plaintiff's premises. On April 16, 1998, Moquin sent an order to the plaintiff stating that he must immediately clean and disinfect all trucks, poultry crates, and equipment, and that he must quarantine his birds. The letter also required that the plaintiff certify that all cleaning and disinfection was complete and that the department would require further testing before the quarantine could be lifted.
The plaintiff apparently complied with the order and then reported that his property had been cleaned and disinfected. On April 22, 1998, Moquin and Dr. Szkudlarek visited the plaintiff's property and obtained serum samples from the plaintiff's birds and environmental samples from the
Page 319
plaintiff's equipment. The environmental samples were sent to the National Veterinary Services Laboratory and the serum samples were sent to the Connecticut Veterinary Diagnostic Laboratory. On April 24, 1998, the Connecticut laboratory reported that four of the serum samples tested positive for avian influenza, and five showed results that were "suspect." Sherman consulted with two professors from the Pathology Department of the University of Connecticut's College of Agricultural and Natural Sciences, and both advised him that all birds at the plaintiff's property should be destroyed to prevent the spread of avian influenza.
On April 27, 1998, Sherman wrote a letter to the plaintiff ordering him, under Conn. Gen.Stat. § 22-234,3 to: (1) immediately depopulate all poultry on his premises; (2) dispose of all dead poultry at an approved incinerator; (3) clean and disinfect all poultry crates and equipment; and (4) refrain from entering any Connecticut poultry farm until further notice. The letter also notified the plaintiff that the quarantine would not be lifted until he received approval from the CDA, and until the results of the environmental samples were received.4 Moquin and James Sullivan, also of the CDA, hand-delivered the letter to the plaintiff on April 27, 1998. Sometime after Moquin delivered the letter to the plaintiff, the plaintiff claims he told Moquin that the positive serum test results were likely due to the vaccination of the birds for the virus, rather than the actual presence of the influenza. Notwithstanding, Moquin, Sullivan, and the plaintiff destroyed thirty-two birds at the Webster premises.5
On May 13, 1998, Sherman sent a letter to the plaintiff lifting the quarantine. On June 29, 1998, Sherman countersigned plaintiff's application to be reinstated as an "Approved Poultry Wholesaler" for the State of New York. The plaintiff then filed a claim with the CDA for compensation for the destruction of the plaintiff's birds pursuant to Conn. Gen.Stat. § 22-326c. In a letter dated October 15, 1998, the Commissioner of Agriculture for the State of Connecticut informed the plaintiff that his claim was incomplete because it did not include documentation demonstrating the value of the birds and requested that the plaintiff forward such information to her attention. Neither the plaintiff nor his attorney responded, and no award has been made by the Commissioner of Agriculture.
The plaintiff then brought this action and sought permission from the State of Connecticut Claims Commissioner to sue the State. Based on a finding that the present action sought to recover relief arising from the same set of facts as the plaintiff's petition to the Claims Commissioner alleging negligence of the State employees, the Claims Commissioner dismissed
Page 320
the plaintiff's petition in an order dated December 16, 1998.
II. Standard
In the context of a motion for summary judgment, the burden is on the moving party to establish that there are no genuine issues of material fact in dispute and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c); Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 256, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986). A court must grant summary judgment "if the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact." Miner v. City of Glens Falls, 999 F.2d 655, 661 (2d Cir. 1993) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). A dispute regarding a material fact is genuine "if the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party." Aldrich v. Randolph Cent. Sch. Dist., 963 F.2d 520, 523 (2d Cir.1992) (internal quotation marks omitted), cert. denied 506 U.S. 965, 113 S.Ct. 440, 121 L.Ed.2d 359 (1992). After discovery, if the nonmoving party "has failed to make a sufficient showing on an essential element of [its] case with respect to which [it] has the burden of proof," then summary judgment is appropriate. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323, 106 S.Ct. 2548, 91 L.Ed.2d 265 (1986).
"The nonmovant must do more than present evidence that is merely colorable, conclusory, or speculative and must present `concrete evidence from which a reasonable juror could return a verdict in his favor.'" Alteri v. General Motors Corp., 919 F.Supp. 92, 94-95 (N.D.N.Y.1996) (quoting Anderson, 477 U.S. at 256, 106 S.Ct. 2505). A party may not create its own "genuine" issue of fact simply by presenting contradictory or unsupported statements. See Securities & Exch. Comm'n v. Research Automation Corp., 585 F.2d 31, 33 (2d Cir.1978). When a motion for summary judgment is supported by documentary evidence and sworn affidavits, the nonmoving party must present "significant probative evidence to create a genuine issue of material fact." Soto v. Meachum, Civ. No. B-90-270 (WWE), 1991 WL 218481, at *6 (D.Conn. Aug. 28, 1991).
In ruling on a motion for summary judgment, the Court resolves "all ambiguities and draw[s] all inferences in favor of the nonmoving party in order to determine how a reasonable jury would decide." Aldrich, 963 F.2d at 523. Thus, "[o]nly when reasonable minds could not differ as to the import of the evidence is summary judgment proper." Bryant v. Maffucci, 923 F.2d 979, 982 (2d Cir.1991), cert. denied, 502 U.S. 849, 112 S.Ct. 152, 116 L.Ed.2d 117 (1991); see also Suburban Propane v. Proctor Gas, Inc., 953 F.2d 780, 788 (2d Cir.1992).
III. Discussion
The plaintiff argues that the defendants' actions deprived him of his substantive and procedural due process rights in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.6 He also contends that the defendants destroyed his property without providing him just compensation in violation of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments. The defendants move for summary judgment on the grounds that there are no genuine issues of material fact that they did not violate his constitutional rights and that they are entitled to qualified immunity as a matter of law.
Page 321
The Supreme Court of the United States has instructed that "the better approach to resolving cases in which the defense of qualified immunity is raised is to determine first whether the plaintiff has alleged a deprivation of a constitutional right at all." County of Sacramento v. Lewis, 523 U.S. 833, 842, n. 5, 118 S.Ct. 1708, 140 L.Ed.2d 1043 (1998)....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Gavlak v. Town of Somers
...Clause until it has used the procedure and been denied just compensation." Id. at 195, 105 S.Ct. 3108; see also Webster v. Moquin, 175 F.Supp.2d 315, 323-24 (D.Conn.2001); Katz v. Stannard Beach Ass'n, 95 F.Supp.2d 90, 98 (D.Conn. 2000). Further, if no procedures exist as a means for obtain......
-
W.D. v. Rockland Cnty.
...presence of the virus "presented an immediate public health threat" necessitating the GMWS exclusions. See Webster v. Moquin , 175 F. Supp. 2d 315, 321–22 (D. Conn. 2001) (finding that defendants reasonably believed that plaintiff's live birds infected by avian influenza created public heal......
-
Am. Rock Salt Co. v. Wilson, 3:15-cv-01848 (MPS)
...the Connecticut Constitution had "a straightforward takings clause" that could be used to recover compensation); Webster v. Moquin, 175 F. Supp.2d 315, 324 (D. Conn. 2001) (holding that Connecticut General Statute Section 22-326c "provides a procedure for making compensation claims for prop......
-
Albert v. City of N.Y.
...law." Rosu v. City of New York, No. 11 Civ. 5437(DAB), 2012 WL 6582534, at *7 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 13, 2012); Webster v. Moquin, 175 F. Supp. 2d 315, 325 (D. Conn. 2001) ("[T]he defendants bear the 'burden of demonstrating the nonexistence of a clearly established right.'" (quoting Tellier v. Fie......