B.K. v. Nielsen, CIV. 12-4046-KES

B.K., a minor, through Greg Kroupa,her guardian ad litem, Plaintiff, v. PETER A. NIELSEN, individually and in his official capacity as Assistant Director of 4-H Youth Development;ROD GEPPERT, individually and in his official capacity as Brule County Extension 4-H representative;JOHN DOES, of the South Dakota 4-H Livestock Ethics Committee unidentifiedin any communication from the other Defendants or in the 2011 South Dakota 4-H DivisionHandbook of the South Dakota Cooperative Extension Service in their individual and official capacities;and MARY DOES, of the South Dakota 4-H Livestock Ethics Committeeunidentified in any communication from the other Defendants or in the 2011South Dakota 4-H Division Handbook of the South Dakota Cooperative ExtensionService in their individual and official capacities, Defendants.

CIV. 12-4046-KES

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF SOUTH DAKOTA SOUTHERN DIVISION

Dated December 18, 2013

ORDER GRANTING IN PART

AND DENYING IN PART

DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR

SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Defendants Peter Nielsen and Rod Geppert move for summary judgment on the remaining claims against them. Plaintiff, B.K., through her father and guardian ad litem Greg Kroupa, resists that motion. For the reasons below, the court grants in part and denies in part the motion for summary judgment.

BACKGROUND

The facts, viewed in the light most favorable to B.K., the nonmoving party, are as follows:

B.K. is a high school student who lives with her family in Brule County, South Dakota. B.K. has participated in 4-H since she was eight years old and has won substantial monetary awards in various competitions.¹ Greg owns and operates a farm and livestock breeding business, and all four of Greg's children have participated in 4-H. Nielsen is the Assistant Director of 4-H Youth Development. In 2011, Geppert was the 4-H Livestock Project Leader, and he is currently the Extension Field Specialist I-4-H Livestock Show Manager.

The South Dakota 4-H program requires that all animals exhibited must be in the possession of the exhibitor by the enrollment date for each competition season. The enrollment date for the 2011 season was June 1,2011. Additionally, the South Dakota 4-H code of ethics requires each participant to affirm that he or she has owned and cared for each project animal throughout the season.

On August 11, 2011, B.K. entered Moe, a crossbred belted barrow swine, in the 4-H Achievement Days at the Brule County Fair. She qualified to compete with Moe at the South Dakota State Fair, which was held from September 1, 2011, to September 6, 2011. At the state fair, B.K. won a reserve champion award with Moe and received $500 plus the market value of Moe's carcass. Because the state fair is a terminal event, Moe was sent directly to slaughter from the fair.

Following the state fair, other 4-H members claimed that B.K. showed a different swine at the state fair than she had shown at the Brule County Fair. Those members claimed B.K.'s state fair entry was actually a swine previously owned by Parker Henley for which Mr. Henley had won an award at the Missouri State Fair on August 13, 2011. According to the allegations, Henley sold his swine to Jeff Grings, who sold the swine to Greg Kroupa, and B.K. entered and won the South Dakota state fair with the imposter swine rather than her original swine.

As the cheating allegations against B.K. mounted, B.K. received harassing text messages, e-mails, and Facebook posts. To stem the allegations, B.K. deleted her Facebook account and reported the messages to her parents. B.K.'s parents contacted 4-H in an effort to stop the harassment.

On September 8, 2011, the 4-H Livestock Ethics Committee met to discuss the allegations surrounding B.K.'s swine. Nielsen and Geppert were both at the meeting. The next day, Greg met with Geppert about the allegations of cheating and the harassment. Nielsen and Geppert both contend that Greg admitted B.K. had not owned or cared for B.K.'s entry in the state fair. Greg denies making any such admission.

The livestock ethics committee met again on September 20, 2011. At that meeting, the committee determined that B.K. misrepresented the ownership of her winning swine at the state fair in violation of 4-H's rules and ethics. B.K. was not given a chance to present any evidence or argument at this meeting—in fact, B.K. was not even informed of the meeting. The committee decided to permanently ban B.K. from showing livestock at 4-H exhibitions. The committee sent B.K. a letter on October 3, 2011, which stated:

This letter is to inform you that you will no longer be allowed to participate in South Dakota 4-H exhibition programs. . . . After being shown pictures on September 9, 2011, your father, Mr. Greg Kroupa, admitted to Mr. Rod Geppert and then, to Mr. Peter Nielsen that you have not owned or cared for your recent swine entry for the project season. He also admitted that your swine entry had been submitted and competed in this year's Missouri State Fair. The South Dakota 4-H Livestock Ethics Committee met on September 20, 2011 and concluded that you misrepresented the ownership of this animal and violated the code of ethics.

Based on the events surrounding the misrepresentation of ownership of your Reserve Champion Overall 4-H Market Swine Entry, the State 4-H Office has permanently removed you from the South Dakota 4-H exhibition program and any futureeligibility or participation in such programs. In addition, you are ineligible to receive any awards or premium monies from the 4-H Swine Project or 4-H Beef Project areas of the 2011 South Dakota State Fair. The South Dakota 4-H program takes the Behavioral Expectations and Code of Conduct . . . very seriously and does not take this action lightly.

Docket 25-1. After receiving the letter, Greg traveled to Brookings, South Dakota, to request an appeal of the committee's decision, but Nielsen told him that no appeal was available.

Subsequently, B.K. filed this suit, alleging various constitutional violations and seeking both monetary and injunctive relief. The court dismissed 4-H as an entity defendant and dismissed the damages claims against Nielsen and Geppert in their official capacities. The court granted B.K.'s request for a preliminary injunction, which was affirmed by the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

Summary judgment is appropriate if the movant "shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). The moving party must present admissible evidence that there is no dispute of material fact or show that the nonmoving party has not presented evidence to support an element of the case on which it bears the ultimate burden of proof. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322-23 (1986); Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c). "The nonmoving party may not 'rest on mere allegations or denials, but must demonstrate on the record the existence of specific facts which create a genuine issue fortrial.' " Mosley v. City of Northwoods, Mo., 415 F.3d 908, 910 (8th Cir. 2005) (quoting Krenik v. County of Le Sueur, 47 F.3d 953, 957 (8th Cir. 1995)).

Summary judgment is not appropriate if there is a dispute about a material fact that could affect the outcome of the case. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986). For purposes of a summary judgment motion, the court views the facts and the inferences drawn from such facts "in the light most favorable to the party opposing the motion." Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 588 (1986).

DISCUSSION

At oral argument on the motion for summary judgment, counsel for B.K. clarified that B.K. is only pursuing her claims based on her First Amendment right to association and Fourteenth Amendment right to procedural due process. B.K. requests monetary relief from Nielsen and Geppert in their individual capacities, and she also seeks injunctive relief against Nielsen and Geppert in both their individual and official capacities.

I. Monetary Relief

Nielsen and Geppert argue that the doctrine of qualified immunity shields them from any personal liability for monetary relief.² "Qualified immunity shields federal and state officials from money damages unless aplaintiff pleads facts showing (1) that the official violated a statutory or constitutional right, and (2) that the right was 'clearly established' at the time of the challenged conduct." Ashcroft v. al-Kidd, 131 S. Ct. 2074, 2080 (2011) (quoting Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 818 (1982)); see also Small v. McCrystal, 708 F.3d 997, 1003 (8th Cir. 2013) ("Qualified immunity protects government officials 'from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.' ") (quoting Harlow, 457 U.S. at 818). " 'Qualified immunity is an affirmative defense for which the defendant carries the burden of proof. The plaintiff[s], however, must demonstrate that the law is clearly established.' " Harrington v. City of Council Bluffs, 678 F.3d 676, 679 (8th Cir. 2012) (quoting Sparr v. Ward, 306 F.3d 589, 593 (8th Cir. 2002)). The court may "exercise [its] sound discretion in deciding which of the two prongs of the qualified immunity analysis should be addressed first in light of the circumstances in the particular case at hand." Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223, 236 (2009) (receding from the mandatory two-step sequence imposed by Saucier v. Katz, 533 U.S. 194 (2001)).

A. Fourteenth Amendment Right to Procedural Due Process

1. Does Procedural Due Process Apply to 4-H Participation

B.K. asserts that her right to due process was violated when the livestock ethics committee deprived B.K. of her interest in her reputation for honesty and integrity when she was publicly banned from government-sponsored 4-H activities for cheating. Nielsen and Geppert contend that B.K. had no protected interest,...