Robertson v. Hecksel

• Decision Date: 16 August 2005
• Docket Number: No. 04-12367.,04-12367.
• Citation: 420 F.3d 1254
• Parties: Patricia ROBERTSON, individually and in her capacity as personal representative of the estate of Corey Rice, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Jimmy HECKSEL, individually and as an agent of the City of Gainesville, City of Gainesville, Defendants-Appellees.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Eleventh Circuit

420 F.3d 1254

Patricia ROBERTSON, individually and in her capacity as personal representative of the estate of Corey Rice, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Jimmy HECKSEL, individually and as an agent of the City of Gainesville, City of Gainesville, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 04-12367.

United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.

August 16, 2005.

Ralph Oliver Anderson, Ralph O. Anderson, P.A., Davie, FL, for Plaintiff-Appellant.

John W. Jolly, Jr., Jolly & Peterson, P.A., Tallahassee, FL, Dale Joseph Paleschic, John Denny Jopling, Elizabeth Marie Collins, Dell Graham, P.A., Gainesville, FL, for Defendants-Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Florida.

Before BLACK, WILSON and STAPLETON^*, Circuit Judges.

BLACK, Circuit Judge:

Appellant Patricia Robertson appeals the district court's dismissal of her claims against Appellees Jimmy Hecksel and the City of Gainesville. Corey Rice, Robertson's son, was killed by Officer Hecksel during a traffic stop. As a result of his death, Robertson argues she suffered a deprivation of her constitutionally-protected liberty interest in a continued relationship with her adult son. Whether a parent has such a right vis-à-vis her adult child is a question of first impression for this Court. We hold that the Fourteenth Amendment's substantive due process protections do not extend to the relationship between a mother and her adult son and, therefore, affirm the district court's dismissal of Robertson's claims.

I. BACKGROUND

The district court succinctly summarized the facts:

On January 30, 2001, Decedent, Corey Rice ("Decedent Rice") was pulled over in a traffic stop by City of Gainesville police officer Jimmy Hecksel ("Hecksel"). Hecksel did not use his police sirens to pull over Decedent Rice, nor did he use any lights to illuminate Decedent Rice's car. When Hecksel approached Decedent Rice's car, he brandished his gun and struck the window with it. Then, he moved in front of Decedent Rice's automobile and pointed the gun at Decedent Rice. Decedent Rice started to drive away in the opposite direction, and Hecksel fired his gun seven times, hitting Decedent Rice with four bullets. Decedent Rice was pronounced dead a few hours later.

Robertson v. Hecksel, Case No. 1:03CV10-SPM at 1-2 (N.D.Fla.2003). Rice was 30 years old at the time of his death.

The personal representative of Rice's estate reached a settlement with Officer Hecksel and the City of Gainesville, "completely releas[ing] and forever discharg[ing] [the] Defendant[s] from any and all past, present or future claims . . . . or any future wrongful death claim of Plaintiff's representatives or heirs, which have resulted or may result from the alleged acts or omissions of the Defendant[s]."¹ The settlement also stated: "[T]he parties acknowledge and agree that nothing contained in this release is intended nor shall anything be construed to release claims, if any, held by the mother of the decedent, Patricia Robertson."

On January 27, 2003, Robertson, individually and in her capacity as personal representative, filed a complaint in the Northern District of Florida against Officer Hecksel and the City of Gainesville (Defendants). In her individual capacity, she alleged, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a deprivation of her Fourteenth Amendment right to a relationship with her adult son and sought damages for loss of support, loss of companionship, and past and future mental pain and suffering.² The Defendants moved to dismiss the claim pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6), and the district court granted their motion. Robertson appeals.

II. STANDARD OF REVIEW

We review a district court's dismissal for failure to state a claim de novo, "accepting the allegations in the complaint as true and construing them in the light most favorable to the plaintiff." Swann v. S. Health Partners, Inc., 388 F.3d 834, 836 (11th Cir.2004) (citation omitted).

III. DISCUSSION

A. Constitutional Right of Companionship

"Section 1983 is no source of substantive federal rights. Instead, to state a section 1983 claim, a plaintiff must point to a violation of a specific federal right." Whiting v. Traylor, 85 F.3d 581, 583 (11th Cir.1996) (citing Albright v. Oliver, 510 U.S. 266, 271, 114 S.Ct. 807, 811, 127 L.Ed.2d 114 (1994) (plurality opinion)). "[I]n § 1983 cases grounded on alleged parental liberty interests, we are venturing into the murky area of unenumerated constitutional rights." McCurdy v. Dodd, 352 F.3d 820, 825 (3d Cir.2003) (citation omitted). When this happens, our first task is to determine "whether the plaintiff has alleged the deprivation of an actual constitutional right at all." Id. at 826 (citations and internal quotations omitted). We should tread lightly because "[b]y extending constitutional protection to an asserted right or liberty interest, we, to a great extent, place the matter outside the arena of public debate and legislative action. We must therefore `exercise the utmost care whenever we are asked to break new ground in this field,' lest the liberty protected by the Due Process Clause be subtly transformed into the policy preferences of the Members of this Court." Washington v. Glucksberg, 521 U.S. 702, 720, 117 S.Ct. 2258, 2267-68, 138 L.Ed.2d 772 (1997) (citations omitted).

A parent's due process right in the care, custody, and control of her children is "perhaps the oldest of the fundamental liberty interests recognized by [the Supreme] Court." Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57, 65, 120 S.Ct. 2054, 2060, 147 L.Ed.2d 49 (2000) (plurality opinion). While this right provides parents with both substantive and procedural protections, the Supreme Court cases "extending liberty interests of parents under the Due Process Clause focus on relationships with minor children." McCurdy, 352 F.3d at 827; see also Isaac J.K. Adams, Note, Growing Pains: The Scope of Substantive Due Process Rights of Parents of Adult Children, 57 Vand. L.Rev. 1883, 1902 (2004) (reviewing Supreme Court caselaw and finding no explicit guidance on how to decide the question of whether parents have a right to companionship with their adult children).

The substantive component of a parent's right to care, custody, and control of her minor children has been relied upon to strike down several state statutes. The Supreme Court held a Nebraska law, which prohibited the teaching of any foreign languages to students until after the eighth grade, deprived parents of their right to "establish a home and bring up children. . . [which has been] long recognized at common law as essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men." Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390, 396-99, 43 S.Ct. 625, 626, 67 L.Ed. 1042 (1923) (citations omitted). Similarly, an Oregon law requiring parents to send their children to public schools was found unconstitutional by the Court because it "unreasonably interfere[d] with the liberty of parents and guardians to direct the upbringing and education of children under their control." Pierce v. Soc'y of Sisters, 268 U.S. 510, 534-35, 45 S.Ct. 571, 573, 69 L.Ed. 1070 (1925); see also Wisconsin v. Yoder, 406 U.S. 205, 232, 92 S.Ct. 1526, 1541, 32 L.Ed.2d 15 (1972) (holding application of Wisconsin's compulsory education law to Amish children unconstitutional under the First Amendment, in part, because "[t]he history and culture of Western civilization reflect a strong tradition of parental concern for the nurture and upbringing of their children"); Prince v. Massachusetts, 321 U.S. 158, 166, 64 S.Ct. 438, 442, 88 L.Ed. 645 (1944) (recognizing that "the custody, care and nurture of the child reside first in the parents, whose primary function and freedom include preparation for obligations the state can neither supply nor hinder") (citation omitted).

A parent's right to care, custody, and control of her minor children has also been the source of added procedural protections. For example, the Supreme Court struck down an Illinois statute that made children of unwed fathers wards of the state upon the death of their mother. Stanley v. Illinois, 405 U.S. 645, 658-59, 92 S.Ct. 1208, 1216-17, 31 L.Ed.2d 551 (1972). There, the biological father's interest "undeniably warrant[ed] deference and, absent a powerful countervailing interest, protection." Id. at 651, 92 S.Ct. at 1212. In Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745, 102 S.Ct. 1388, 71 L.Ed.2d 599 (1982), the Court held a state is required to show by at least clear and convincing evidence that parental rights should be terminated because, among other reasons, "[t]he fundamental liberty interest of natural parents in the care, custody, and management of their child does not evaporate simply because they have not been model parents. . . ." Id. at 753, 102 S.Ct. at 1394-95; see also Lassiter v. Dep't of Soc. Servs., 452 U.S. 18, 27, 101 S.Ct. 2153, 2160, 68 L.Ed.2d 640 (1981) (although refusing to hold the Due Process Clause requires the state to appoint counsel for parents at a termination hearing, noting that "[a] parent's interest in the accuracy and injustice of the decision to terminate his or her parental status is . . . a commanding one").

It is against this backdrop that we analyze Robertson's claim. She would have us hold that the parental rights already recognized by the Supreme Court include a right to companionship with an adult child. Robertson's claim could potentially involve two very separate questions: one, whether the asserted right exists; and two, if the asserted right does exist, under what conditions does a deprivation occur, i.e., are we looking for negligent behavior, an intentional act, etc. One must have a right before it can be deprived; therefore, the state-of-mind of the accused party is irrelevant to the initial inquiry.

There appear to be three possible resolutions of Robertson's claim: (1) she has a right and can recover for incidental deprivations; (2) she has a right, but cannot recover for incidental deprivations; and (3)...