Lunon v. Botsford, No. 18-3314 (8th Cir. 2019)
Annotate this Case
Plaintiff filed an amended complaint seeking damages under 42 U.S.C. 1983, alleging that each individual defendant violated his constitutional right to procedural due process under the Fourteenth Amendment when the local animal shelter, after a five-day holding period, put a stray dog up for adoption and spayed the dog before delivering it to the adopting family. Defendants did not know that the stray dog was plaintiff's young German Shepherd, which boasts world champion lineage and had escaped from plaintiff's back yard two weeks earlier.
The Eighth Circuit held that the district court failed to devote sufficient attention to whether plaintiff had a protected procedural due process property interest and if so, the nature and extent of that interest. The court agreed with the Supreme Court of Arkansas that affirmative pre-deprivation notice is not constitutionally required in this situation, when an animal shelter holds a stray dog for more than five days and then adopts out and spays the dog after the owner fails to file a claim. The court also held that plaintiff failed to prove that each individual defendant's conduct violated his right to procedural due process. Therefore, the court reversed the district court's order insofar as it denied summary judgment to the individual defendants acting in their individual capacities, remanding with directions.
Court Description: Loken, Author, with Colloton and Kobes, Circuit Judges] Civil case - Civil rights. In action alleging defendants denied plaintiff his Fourteenth Amendment right to procedural due process when they adopted out and spayed his dog without providing pre-deprivation notice and an opportunity to be heard, the Arkansas Supreme Court has held that affirmative pre-deprivation notice is not constitutionally required when a shelter holds a stray dog for more than five days and then adopts out and spays the dog after the owner fails to file a claim; plaintiff failed to prove that each individual defendant's conduct violated his right to procedural due process; to the extent the district court's order denied summary judgment to the individual defendants acting in their individual capacities, the order is reversed; the matter is remanded with directions to enter judgment dismissing those claims with prejudice. Judge Colloton, concurring in the judgment.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.