Stewart v. Department of Consumer Affairs of California

Background

Selene Fumie Stewart alleged that she worked as a licensed vocational nurse in California for twenty-nine years before her nursing license was revoked after an incident at Winsor House Convalescent Hospital. She alleged that she had been found not culpable in related proceedings, had sued the hospital for racial discrimination, and had prevailed in two courts. She further alleged that, after she was cleared by the Board of Vocational Nursing and Psychiatric Technicians, new allegations led to another license revocation.

Stewart alleged that an officer for the Department of Consumer Affairs brought formal allegations against her without interviewing her, singled her out because she was the only Afro Asian nurse on duty on the date of the incident, and failed to pursue violations by other employees. She also alleged that the Department of Consumer Affairs, the Department of Health Care Services, and the Board of Vocational Nursing and Psychiatric Technicians acted together and ignored evidence and prior adjudications.

Stewart alleged that she applied three times to have her license reinstated and that each application was denied without procedural due process. The only event at issue in this amended complaint was the alleged denial of her third application in October 2020, which she said occurred without a hearing. She also argued that the administrative law judge involved in the license proceedings was unconstitutional under Lucia v. Securities and Exchange Commission.

Earlier Order and Screening Standard

The court had previously dismissed Stewart’s first four claims with prejudice. It also dismissed her fifth claim under the Fourteenth Amendment and 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a statute allowing claims for certain constitutional violations by state actors, while allowing her to amend only allegations concerning the October 2020 denial of reinstatement. The court had ruled that allegations concerning license revocation and reinstatement denials from 2009 to 2011 were barred by the statute of limitations.

The court screened the amended complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). That law requires dismissal when a qualifying complaint is frivolous, malicious, fails to state a legally sufficient claim, or seeks money from a defendant immune from such relief. The court applied the same basic pleading standard used for a motion to dismiss: the complaint had to allege facts that plausibly showed the defendants were liable.

Fourteenth Amendment Claims

Stewart asserted equal protection and procedural due process theories under § 1983. For equal protection, she needed facts supporting an inference that the defendants intentionally discriminated against her because of her membership in a protected class. The court held that alleging only that her October 2020 reinstatement application was denied without a hearing did not support an inference of discriminatory intent. Stewart did not allege that a similarly situated person of another race received more favorable treatment or identify another fact showing discriminatory intent.

For procedural due process, a claim generally requires a protected liberty or property interest, a government deprivation of that interest, and a lack of constitutionally adequate process. The court assumed, for purposes of its analysis, that the October 2020 denial involved a protected property interest and a government deprivation. It nonetheless held that Stewart had not adequately alleged a lack of process.

The court explained that due process does not automatically require a hearing every time a request to reinstate a license is denied. Stewart alleged that she had not received a hearing on her third reinstatement application, but the court noted that she had received a hearing after the earlier license revocation. The court stated that it was not aware of authority requiring a hearing on a third attempt to regain a property interest when the person had already received a pre- or post-deprivation hearing. Without additional allegations showing defects in the reinstatement process, the lack of a hearing alone was insufficient to state a due process claim.

Administrative Law Judge Argument

The court rejected Stewart’s reliance on Lucia. It explained that Lucia concerned the appointment of administrative law judges by the federal Securities and Exchange Commission under the Constitution’s Appointments Clause. The court held that the Appointments Clause did not apply to the appointment of California state administrative law judges in the circumstances alleged here.

Disposition

The court concluded that Stewart had not added facts showing that she could cure the deficiencies in her Fourteenth Amendment claim. It therefore dismissed the first amended complaint with prejudice under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). The court directed the clerk to enter judgment and close the case.