Summary of a Recent
Judicial Development in
Animal Welfare

Civil Rights Suit against Township for Wrongful Seizure of a Dog Is Dismissed

Walt McCarter
National AgLaw Center Research Associate

Summary of Decision

In Rivero v. Humane Society of Fayette County, No. 08-793, 2009 WL 18704 (W.D. Pa. Jan. 3, 2009), the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania held that the plaintiffs had failed to allege sufficient facts to support their civil rights claim against a municipality stemming from alleged wrongdoings of the local chapter of the Humane Society, and thus granted the municipality's motion to dismiss.

Background

The plaintiffs brought this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against the Humane Society of Fayette County and its agents and North Union Township, claiming that the defendants unlawfully removed their dog in violation of their constitutional rights and in violation of state law. Id. at *1. The plaintiffs alleged that two Humane Society officers came onto their property, took one of their dogs, and threatened to file charges against them. Id. They claimed they were presented with a form that they neither read nor understood and were forced to sign under duress. Id. They further alleged that when they went to the Humane Society and attempted to reclaim the dog, they were ridiculed and subjected to verbal abuse, and that the defendants conspired to unlawfully deprive them of their dog. Id. They also claimed that a defendant came to one of the plaintiff's place of work and defamed her. Id. The township moved for dismissal of the claims against it. Id. at *2.

Arguments

The township argued that the plaintiffs had failed to allege facts sufficient to state a claim against it for violations of either 42 U.S.C. § 1983 or state law; more specifically, it argued that the plaintiffs had failed to allege that the township had any knowledge of, or involvement in, the seizure of their dog. Id. at *3.

The plaintiffs alleged that the township had "encouraged, tolerated, ratified, and [had] been deliberately indifferent to . . . patterns, practices, and customs, and to the need for more or different training, supervision, investigation, or discipline," had "a custom, practice or policy of allowing its dog control officers" to take dogs without legal justification, and had failed to adequately supervise, train, and discipline the Humane Society. Id. at *4.

Analysis and Holdings

The court explained that in order to recover in a § 1983 action, plaintiffs must prove two essential elements: "1) defendants deprived plaintiffs of a right secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States; and 2) defendants deprived plaintiffs of this federal right under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage of any state or territory." Id. at *3. Furthermore, the doctrine of respondeat superior does not apply to such claims, and thus municipalities can be held liable only when they had personal involvement in the alleged wrongs. See id. Considering that principle, the court concluded that the plaintiffs had failed to state a claim against the township pursuant to § 1983, and they had failed to provide any factual support for their state law claims against the township; therefore, the court granted the township's motion to dismiss. Id. at *4.

The case was decided on January 3, 2009.