Dandridge v. St. Germain ( 2021 )

Case: 21-30275 Document: 00516065948 Page: 1 Date Filed: 10/22/2021
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
October 22, 2021
No. 21-30275 Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk
Edward Dandridge; Delta Safety Driving School,
L.L.C.,
Plaintiffs—Appellants,
versus
Karen G. St. Germain, Individually and in her Official
Capacity as Commissioner of the Office of Motor
Vehicles,
Defendant—Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Louisiana
USDC No. 3:19-CV-529
Before Davis, Jones, and Elrod, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam:*
The court has carefully considered this appeal in light of the briefs and
pertinent portions of the record. Having done so, we find no reversible error
*
Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 47.5, the court has determined that this
opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited
circumstances set forth in 5th Circuit Rule 47.5.4.
Case: 21-30275 Document: 00516065948 Page: 2 Date Filed: 10/22/2021
No. 21-30275
of fact or law. We AFFIRM the judgment.
Appellants contend that their procedural due process rights were
violated when the Louisiana Office of Motor Vehicles (the “OMV”) failed
to renew their operating license without a hearing. For eight years, the OMV
periodically renewed their license pursuant to the terms of a standard
contract that provided a two-year term. Also included in the contract was an
explicit reservation of the OMV’s right to not renew upon the expiration of
the agreement. In 2018, the OMV decided not to renew Appellants’ license
and provided written notice. In dismissing the case on summary judgment
sua sponte, the district court found that Appellants had not been deprived of
due process because they did not have an ongoing property interest in the
renewal of their operating license under Louisiana law.
Appellants do not have a property interest in the renewal of their
license when the license was provided on the express condition that it might
not be renewed in the future and when there are no governing statutes that
conflict with this contractual reservation. See Baton Rouge Rice Mill v.
Fairbanks, Morse & Co., 114 So. 633, 634 (La. 1927) (“When a right is
extinguished by the happening of a condition to which it has always been
subject, it cannot be said that the owner of the right has been deprived of it
without due process of law.”); see also Bd. of Regents of State Colleges v. Roth,
408 U.S. 564, 578, 92 S. Ct. 2701, 2710 (1972) (holding that an untenured
professor employed for a fixed term lacked a property interest in his position
after his contract expired in part because the “terms” of his appointment
“secured absolutely no interest in re-employment for the next year”). The
Louisiana authorities cited by Appellants are not to the contrary. See, e.g.,
Anderson v. Orleans Par. Sch. Bd., 340 F. Supp. 2d 716, 720–21 (E.D. La.
2004) (recognizing that an applicable statute was the source of the
superintendent’s property interest in a fixed term and holding that the
statute overrode the conflicting contract provision); Palmer v. Louisiana State
2
Case: 21-30275 Document: 00516065948 Page: 3 Date Filed: 10/22/2021
No. 21-30275
Bd. of Elementary & Secondary Educ., 2002-2043 (La. 4/9/03), 842 So. 2d 363,
370–71 (acknowledging that “a probationary teacher is not entitled to a
constitutionally protected interest in the renewal of their contracts”).
For the foregoing reasons, we AFFIRM the judgment.
3