## Facts

- United Pet Supply, Inc. operated a pet store in a Chattanooga, Tennessee mall.
- Animal Care Trust, a private nonprofit doing business as McKamey Animal Care and Adoption Center, contracted with the City of Chattanooga to provide animal-welfare services and enforce related requirements.
- After receiving complaints of neglect and unsanitary conditions, McKamey employees Karen Walsh and Marvin Nicholson Jr. inspected the store.
- The employees observed animals allegedly kept in poor conditions, including lack of water and no working air conditioning.
- Assisted by McKamey employee Paula Hurn, the employees removed animals and certain business records from the store and revoked the store’s pet-dealer permit.
- United Pet Supply alleged the seizure and revocation occurred without a warrant and without a pre-deprivation hearing.
- United Pet Supply brought a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action asserting (1) Fourth Amendment violations for warrantless seizure of animals and records and (2) Fourteenth Amendment procedural due process violations for animal removal and permit revocation without prior process.
- McKamey and the individual employees asserted qualified immunity; the district court denied qualified immunity in part, and the defendants pursued an interlocutory appeal.

## Issues

1. Whether a private, nonprofit animal-welfare officer performing delegated municipal functions may assert qualified immunity in her personal capacity in a § 1983 suit.
2. Whether the other defendants were entitled to qualified immunity on Fourth Amendment and procedural due process claims arising from the warrantless seizure and permit revocation.
3. Whether the alleged warrantless seizure of animals and business records, and revocation of a pet-dealer permit without a pre-deprivation hearing, violated clearly established constitutional rights.

## Decision

- The Sixth Circuit held that Paula Hurn, as a private animal-welfare officer, could not invoke qualified immunity in her personal capacity.
- The court treated McKamey and its personnel as state actors for § 1983 purposes based on their contracted role enforcing municipal animal-welfare functions.
- The court issued a mixed ruling on qualified immunity and summary judgment for the remaining defendants, affirming in part and reversing in part the district court’s order.
- The case was remanded for further proceedings consistent with the court’s claim- and defendant-specific rulings.

## Legal Principles

- Qualified immunity for private individuals performing governmental work depends on both (1) historical common-law analogues supporting immunity for the relevant role and (2) whether extending immunity aligns with § 1983’s purposes.
- State-actor status for § 1983 liability is a distinct inquiry from entitlement to qualified immunity; a defendant can act under color of state law yet lack qualified immunity.
- Warrantless seizures are presumptively unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment unless an established exception applies, including exigent circumstances; qualified immunity turns on whether unlawfulness was clearly established and whether the conduct was objectively reasonable in light of the circumstances.
- Procedural due process generally requires pre-deprivation process before the government deprives a person of a protected property interest, but an emergency may permit immediate action followed by adequate post-deprivation procedures.

## Conclusion

The Sixth Circuit refused to extend qualified immunity to a private animal-welfare officer employed by a nonprofit contractor, while otherwise applying standard qualified-immunity analysis to the challenged warrantless seizure and permit revocation and remanding after partially affirming and partially reversing the district court.


United Pet Supply, Inc. v. City of Chattanooga, 768 F.3d 464 (6th Cir. 2014)