## Facts

- Big Cats of Serenity Springs, Inc., a Colorado nonprofit wildlife center, operated under a USDA exhibitor license and was regulated under the Animal Welfare Act (AWA).
- In April 2013, APHIS inspectors conducted a routine warrantless inspection, observed an injured tiger cub, and issued a citation requiring veterinary care.
- After follow-up visits, APHIS directed Big Cats to transport two injured cubs for medical treatment; Big Cats took them to a veterinarian.
- The next morning, APHIS agents returned to the facility intending to locate and inspect or seize the cubs; when the director did not respond, they sought assistance from county sheriff’s deputies.
- Big Cats alleged the federal agents induced deputies to forcibly enter nonpublic areas by falsely stating APHIS had a court order authorizing seizure.
- Once inside, agents learned the cubs were not present because they had been transported to the veterinary clinic.
- Big Cats sued federal inspectors for damages under Bivens for an unreasonable search and also asserted a § 1983 claim on a joint-action theory with the deputies.

## Issues

1. Whether a Bivens damages remedy is available for an alleged Fourth Amendment violation by APHIS inspectors, or whether the AWA’s regulatory scheme forecloses Bivens.
2. Whether the complaint plausibly alleged a violation of clearly established Fourth Amendment law sufficient to defeat qualified immunity at the Rule 12(b)(6) stage.
3. Whether federal inspectors can be sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on the theory that they acted under color of state law through joint action with county deputies.

## Decision

- The court affirmed denial of the motion to dismiss the Bivens Fourth Amendment claim, holding the complaint stated a claim for unlawful entry.
- The court held the AWA’s administrative and enforcement provisions were not an alternative remedial scheme that displaced a Bivens remedy for the alleged unconstitutional entry.
- The court affirmed denial of qualified immunity at the pleading stage because the alleged warrantless, forcible entry procured by a false claim of legal authority plausibly violated clearly established Fourth Amendment law.
- The court reversed as to the § 1983 claim and ordered it dismissed against the federal inspectors because the complaint did not plausibly allege state action attributable to the federal officers.

## Legal Principles

- A Bivens remedy may be recognized for a Fourth Amendment violation by federal officers unless an alternative, existing remedial process or special factors counsel against implying a damages action.
- An administrative enforcement regime directed at regulating licensees is not, by itself, an adequate substitute remedy for unconstitutional conduct by federal inspectors when it provides no meaningful damages or relief for the challenged search.
- A warrantless physical entry into nonpublic private property is presumptively unreasonable absent consent, exigency, or another recognized exception; an entry obtained through a false claim of legal authority can violate the Fourth Amendment.
- On a Rule 12(b)(6) qualified-immunity appeal, courts accept well-pleaded allegations as true and ask whether the alleged facts state a constitutional violation and whether the right was clearly established at the time.
- Section 1983 generally does not apply to federal officers; to proceed, a plaintiff must plausibly plead conduct fairly attributable to the state under a joint-action or similar state-action theory, and routine cooperation with local law enforcement is insufficient.

## Conclusion

The Tenth Circuit permitted a Bivens claim to proceed for an allegedly warrantless and deceptive forced entry by federal animal-welfare inspectors, denied qualified immunity at the pleading stage, and dismissed a parallel § 1983 claim because the federal inspectors were not plausibly alleged to have acted under color of state law.


Big Cats of Serenity Springs, Inc. v. Rhodes, 843 F.3d 853 (10th Cir. 2016)