Behrens

I. INTRODUCTION

This case arises from Lazy Y Ranch’s attempt to lease grazing lands from the State of Idaho. The leases were auc- tioned by the State and although Lazy Y was the high bidder, the leases ultimately were awarded to other parties. Lazy Y filed a complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that vari- ous state officials violated the Equal Protection Clause when they rejected its bids. In particular, Lazy Y alleged that the officials discriminated against Lazy Y because it (1) has per- ceived ties to conservationists; and (2) is a Washington corpo- ration that was attempting to enter the Idaho grazing market.

Defendants moved to dismiss the complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), contending that Lazy Y failed to state an Equal Protection claim and, alternatively, that they were entitled to qualified immunity. Defendants’ motion relied on various documents indicating they had artic- ulated a legitimate reason for rejecting Lazy Y’s bids — namely, that leasing to Lazy Y would involve increased administrative costs because the lands were unfenced and cat- tle could wander onto adjoining property. The district court struck most of Defendants’ extraneous…