Summary of a Recent
Judicial Development in
Animal Feeding Operations

Unsuccessful Challenge of Due Process and Takings Clause
Related to Waste Handling Violations

Walt McCarter
National AgLaw Center Research Associate

Summary of Decision

In Daniels v. Iowa, No. 07-1275, 2008 WL 4569870 (Iowa Ct. App. Oct. 15, 2008), the Iowa Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal of the plaintiff's complaints against the State and assistant attorney general for alleged Fifth Amendment violations, and held that the plaintiff was not entitled to criminal due process protections regarding a civil penalty assessed against him for violations of waste handling requirements.

Background

The State brought an action against Daniels for civil violations of waste handling requirements related to his hog confinement feeding facility. Id. at *1. The court assessed a $95,000 civil penalty and ordered injunctive relief. Id. The state assistant attorney general subsequently assigned the judgment to an entity known as Hunters Retreat, LLC, and signed a letter indicating that the judgment had been paid. Id. Daniels brought this action against the State and the assistant attorney general personally for violations of the Fifth Amendment takings clause, and appealed the original judgment. Id.

Arguments

Daniels argued that the State and the assistant attorney general had violated the Fifth Amendment takings clause by assigning his judgment. Id. Daniels also argued that because the fine assessed against him, although a civil penalty, was criminal in nature, he was entitled to and deprived of the full extent of criminal due process, and thus the judgment against him was void.Id. at *3.

Analysis and Holdings

The court explained that a 28 U.S.C. § 1983 action cannot be brought against a state, as a state and its agencies are not "persons" within the meaning of the section. Id. at *2. The court also noted that such an action cannot be brought against state officials acting in their official capacity, and although the complaint named the assistant attorney general personally, the allegations appeared to be based on official acts; however, the court gave him the benefit of a doubt as to whether the allegation raised an "official capacity" claim or an "individual capacity" claim. Id. The court then held that because the state attorney general was authorized to bring suit on behalf of the Iowa Department of Natural Resources, the assistant attorney general had absolute prosecutorial immunity concerning the original litigation. Id. The court did not, however, that absolute immunity does not extend to prosecutors performing administrative functions or for actions not "intimately associated with the judicial phase of the criminal process," and thus concluded that the assistant attorney general did not have absolute immunity regarding the unconstitutional taking claim. Id. On review, the court found that the assignment of judgment was proper and there had been no violation of the takings clause, so it dismissed the plaintiff's constitutional claim. Id. at *3. Lastly, the court concluded that because the statutory provision that Daniels violated explicitly referenced a "civil penalty," it was civil in nature and Daniels was not entitled to criminal due process protections. Id. at *4. The court therefore affirmed the dismissal of all of the plaintiff's claims. Id.

The case was decided on October 15, 2008.