## Facts

- Georgia agriculture officials investigated alleged violations of the Georgia Humane Care for Equines Act concerning inadequate food and water for equines on Edna S. Reams’s farm.
- An equine inspector obtained a magistrate-issued warrant to inspect the farm.
- State officials executed the warrant and, based on observed conditions and a veterinarian’s assessment, impounded approximately 46–49 equines (horses and donkeys) under the Act.
- The Act provided procedures to contest impoundment through an agency process and subsequent judicial review in state court.
- Reams asserted she was not personally informed at the time of seizure about her right to a hearing or how to request review, and she claimed she was initially unaware of available remedies.
- Reams sought administrative review within the Georgia Department of Agriculture (unsuccessfully) and pursued judicial review in Georgia state court.
- Reams also filed a federal action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging constitutional violations arising from the impoundment; the district court entered summary judgment for defendants based on qualified immunity.
- On appeal, Reams challenged the qualified-immunity ruling as to her procedural due process claim.

## Issues

1. Whether, under clearly established law, procedural due process required a pre-deprivation hearing before warrant-based impoundment of equines for alleged neglect under an animal-welfare statute.
2. Whether clearly established due process law required officials to give personal, explicit notice of the right to, and procedures for requesting, administrative and judicial review of the impoundment.
3. Whether the available post-deprivation administrative process and state-court judicial review were constitutionally inadequate under clearly established law, defeating qualified immunity.

## Decision

- The Eleventh Circuit affirmed summary judgment for the defendants.
- The court held Reams did not show a violation of clearly established procedural due process rights regarding (a) the lack of a pre-deprivation hearing, (b) the claimed deficiency in personal notice, or (c) the alleged inadequacy of post-deprivation procedures.
- Because Reams failed to identify clearly established authority putting officials on notice that their conduct was unconstitutional in this context, the defendants were entitled to qualified immunity.

## Legal Principles

- Qualified immunity shields officials unless the plaintiff shows (1) a constitutional violation and (2) that the right was clearly established at the time of the challenged conduct.
- In situations calling for swift protective action, due process may permit seizure of property without a prior hearing when pre-deprivation process is impracticable, particularly if post-deprivation review mechanisms are available.
- For qualified-immunity purposes, due process notice requirements must be clearly established in their asserted form; absent controlling precedent, officials are not liable for failing to provide a particular type of personalized advisement beyond an existing statutory review scheme.
- Meaningful post-deprivation remedies—such as an agency review process coupled with state-court judicial review—generally satisfy procedural due process where immediate action is taken and pre-deprivation hearing is not feasible.

## Conclusion

The Eleventh Circuit concluded that warrant-based emergency impoundment of allegedly neglected equines, coupled with statutory administrative and judicial avenues to contest the seizure, did not violate clearly established procedural due process law, so the officials were protected by qualified immunity from § 1983 liability.


Reams v. Irvin, 561 F.3d 1258 (11th Cir. 2009)