|
Baughman v. City of Elkhart, TX |
Plaintiff Tammy Baughman filed a complaint on May 31, 2017 seeking relief pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging a violation of her Fourteenth amendment rights; the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), alleging that she was discriminated against; the Fair Housing Amendments Act (FHAA), alleging a failure to make reasonable accommodations; and 42 U.S.C. § 3613. Plaintiff asserts that she is disabled due to a failed back surgery. She also has fibromyalgia, depression, and other health issues. Plaintiff has a seven pound ring tail lemur that she claims is an emotional support animal that improves her quality of life. Plaintiff's lemur bit a mail carrier on December 5, 2012 which left lacerations on the carrier's hand and wrist. Plaintiff then moved to Elkhart, Texas in December 2014 where her lemur bit another person on June 25, 2015. In both instances the lemur was quarantined for 30 days and then returned to Plaintiff. The City of Elkhart enacted an ordinance on October 5, 2015 that bans all non-human primates from the city. Plaintiff claims she requested an accommodation form the City to keep her lemur as an emotional support animal, but her request was denied. The defendants, which include the mayor and city council members, claim the plaintiff never requested an accommodation. Plaintiff further alleges that the defendants "showed deliberate indifference in refusing to give [her] a hearing and defend her lemur,' which violates the FHAA and ADA. On February 15, 2018, Defendants filed a Motion for Summary Judgment seeking a dismissal of all of Plaintiff's claims. Defendants claim that Plaintiff's lemur was involved in two documented attacks in Houston County, Texas and a third in Elkhart. Defendants assert that Plaintiff runs a retail resale shop out of her home and that in the third attack on June 25, 2015, the lemur jumped on a customer in plaintiff's store. Defendants assert that the ordinance was enacted as a legitimate exercise of the City's legislative power and police power. The District court concluded that the defendants are entitled to absolute judicial immunity for their conduct because the act of voting in favor of an ordinance is an undeniable legislative action. As for Plaintiff's 1983 claim, the District Court concluded that she had not shown a genuine issue of material fact concerning whether her due process rights were violated nor does she have a basis for a procedural due process claim. The ordinance is rationally related to the City's legitimate interest in the safety and welfare of its citizens. The ordinance does not violate the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. As for Plaintiff's ADA claim, the District Court concluded that the Plaintiff had not shown that the reasonable accommodation that she requested - an exemption from the animal control ordinance - did not place an undue burden on the City of Elkhart. No facts were provided by the Plaintiff that would show that her interest in keeping her lemur outweighs the interest of the City in protecting its citizens. As for Plaintiff's ADA claim, in order to succeed on an ADA claim, there must be some evidence that set the animal apart from an ordinary pet. The Plaintiff failed to show any evidence that her lemur is specifically trained to perform tasks that help her in her daily life. The District Court held that the Defendant's motion for summary judgment is granted and the Plaintiff's complaint is dismissed with prejudice. |
|
Behind a Glass, Darkly |
As wild populations of big cats continue to decline precipitously, concerns about the ethical and environmental considerations of keeping cats for entertainment have increased exponentially. The plight of the big cat has been brought forcibly into the international media spotlight following high profile incidents like the tiger attack on Roy Horn at Las Vegas’ Mirage Casino. However, for every big cat whose instinct makes the national news, many suffer in silence, sacrificed to entertain the masses. Often, this cruelty to animals is rationalized under the wide net of “education,” since many people still believe there is valuable information to be gained from viewing animals trapped behind bars.
|
|
Biological Information: Reptile Biology and Physiology |
This overview describes the fundamental characteristics of reptile biology and physiology.
|
|
Brief Overview of Chimpanzee Laws |
This article briefly covers the main threats to chimpanzee welfare, the tools currently in place to protect them, and suggestions for improving their status.
|
|
Brief Summary of Exotic Pet Laws |
This brief summary examines the issues that affect ownership of exotic pets. It also discusses the type of laws that regulate such ownership.
|
|
Brief Summary of Feral Cat Population Control |
This is a brief overview of feral cat population issues. Opposing viewpoints on cat control are presented. Issues of legal liability for cat predation are explored.
|
|
Brief Summary of Swap Meet Laws |
|
|
Brief Summary of the International Trade in Wild-Caught Reptiles |
This brief summary overviews the problems associated with the international illegal reptile trade.
|
|
Broden v. Marin Humane Society |
Owner of animals that had been impounded from reptile store brought administrative mandamus proceeding, challenging conclusions by hearing officer at hearing that followed animal control service's seizure of animals from store. On appeal, the court held that the warrantless entry of animal control officer into store was justified by exigent circumstances and that the owner lost all possessory interest in seized animals by failing to pay costs of seizure and impoundment within 14 days of seizure. |
|
CA - Cruelty - § 597.6. Exotic or native wild cat species; alteration of toes, claws or paws |
This California law provides that no person may perform, or otherwise procure or arrange for the performance of, surgical claw removal, declawing, onychectomy, or tendonectomy on any cat that is a member of an exotic or native wild cat species, and shall not otherwise alter such a cat's toes, claws, or paws to prevent the normal function of the cat's toes, claws, or paws. Violation results in a misdemeanor punishable by imprisonment for up to one year and/or a fine of up to $10,000. |
