State of Nevada v. Dist. Ct.(Ducharm)
| Decision Date | 16 October 2002 |
| Docket Number | No. 38543.,38543. |
| Citation | 55 P.3d 420,118 Nev. 609 |
| Parties | The STATE of Nevada; Edward Paige, Nancy Gammie, and Arnold Sierra, Individually and as Agents and Employees of the State of Nevada; Collette Lancaster and Scott Lancaster, Individually and as Licensed Foster Parents of Azeria Ducharm; Monty Loper and Shala Loper, Individually and as Parents of a Teenage Daughter, Jaime Beesley, Jointly and Severally; John Brown and Jane Brown, Individuals, Petitioners, v. The SECOND JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT of the State of Nevada, In and For the COUNTY OF WASHOE, and the Honorable Steven R. Kosach, District Judge, Respondents, and Azeria Ducharm, a Minor Child Now Deceased; Estate of Azeria Ducharm; and Monique Ducharm, Individually and as the Natural Mother, Heir and the Legal Representative of the Estate of Azeria Ducharm, Real Parties in Interest. |
| Court | Nevada Supreme Court |
Frankie Sue Del Papa, Attorney General, and Charles Hilsabeck, Deputy Attorney General, Carson City, for Petitioners State of Nevada, Edward Paige, Nancy Gammie, and Arnold Sierra.
Laxalt & Nomura, Ltd., and Daniel T. Hayward, Reno, for Petitioners Collette and Scott Lancaster.
Rands, South & Gardner, Reno, for Petitioners Monty and Shala Loper.
Law Offices of Sharon McDonald, Reno, for Real Parties in Interest.
BEFORE SHEARING, ROSE and BECKER, JJ.
On January 21, 1999, fourteen-month-old Azeria Ducharm was removed from the care of her biological parents and made a ward of the State by the Division of Child and Family Services based on allegations of neglect. Since she had several serious and permanent medical conditions that necessitated further evaluation, Azeria was placed in licensed therapeutic foster care. On April 3, 1999, during her placement with the foster parents, Azeria was watched, along with several other children, by a fifteen-year-old babysitter. The babysitter fed, or allowed Azeria to be fed, a hot dog. Azeria choked to death despite the babysitter's attempts to render aid.
Real party in interest Monique Ducharm, individually and as heir and representative for Azeria Ducharm, filed a negligence claim against the State of Nevada, State employees individually, Azeria's foster parents, and the parents of the babysitter charged with Azeria's care at the time of her death. Monique generally alleged that the petitioners had been negligent in: (1) failing to evaluate Azeria's medical needs as a child with special medical conditions; (2) failing to take Azeria's medical needs into consideration in selecting the foster parents; (3) failing to inform the foster parents of Azeria's special needs; (4) failing to seek medical evaluations or treatment regarding Azeria's special needs; and (5) failing to supervise Azeria's care in light of her special medical needs.
Petitioners filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings pursuant to NCRP 12(c) based on the theory of absolute quasi-judicial immunity. Because the district court considered matters outside the pleadings in rendering its judgment, petitioners' motion was treated as one for summary judgment. Thereafter, the district court dismissed Monique's claim for relief regarding the State's failure to have a policy or procedure in place for special needs children. However, the district court refused to dismiss the remaining claims against the petitioners on the grounds of quasi-judicial immunity, concluding that genuine issues of material fact prohibited summary judgment at this early stage of the proceeding.
Petitioners then filed their petition for a writ of mandamus or, in the alternative, a writ of prohibition, compelling the district court to dismiss the claims against them.
For the reasons discussed herein, we conclude that the district court did not err in denying petitioners' motion to dismiss based upon the theory of quasi-judicial immunity.
On January 21, 1999, Monique Ducharm and her domestic partner, Allen Teddy Taylor, were arrested and incarcerated. Five minor children were living with Monique and Taylor at the time of their arrest. Based on the arrest and the living conditions in the home, the children were placed in protective custody. The youngest of these children, Azeria, a fourteen-month-old girl, had several serious and permanent medical conditions.
After an evidentiary hearing, the juvenile division of the district court determined that, because of her medical needs, Azeria should be placed in a licensed therapeutic foster home. The court also ordered additional medical evaluations to devise a case plan that would meet Azeria's special needs. The remaining children were placed in a group home.
Azeria was placed in the care of Scott and Collette Lancaster. On April 3, 1999, the Lancasters entrusted Azeria's care to a fifteen-year-old babysitter. Unfortunately, while in the babysitter's care, Azeria choked on a hot dog and died.
Real party in interest Monique Ducharm, individually and as heir and representative, filed a negligence claim against the State of Nevada, State employees individually, Azeria's foster parents, and the babysitter's parents. The complaint alleged multiple claims for relief.1 In particular, the complaint asserted that petitioners, the State and its employees, were negligent because the State failed to have adequate policies or procedures in place to address the care of special needs children. In addition, the complaint alleged that the social workers and supervisors assigned to Azeria's case failed to properly: (1) evaluate her medical needs; (2) take her medical needs into consideration in selecting the foster parents; (3) inform the foster parents of Azeria's needs; (4) seek medical treatment or evaluations regarding her needs; and (5) supervise her care in light of her special needs.
After the State indicated its intent to move for dismissal based on absolute immunity, all parties stipulated to a stay of the proceedings pending resolution of the absolute immunity issue. The State defendants moved for judgment on the pleadings pursuant to NRCP 12(c). The State asserted that it and the individual State employees were acting as agents of the courts and, as such, were entitled to absolute quasi-judicial immunity.
The district court considered matters outside the pleadings, and thus treated the motion as one for summary judgment.2 The district court dismissed the first claim for relief regarding the State's failure to have a policy or procedure for special needs children, because Monique failed to demonstrate that this failure proximately caused Azeria's death. However, the district court refused to dismiss the remaining claims on the ground of quasi-judicial immunity.
Petitioners assert that they are entitled to absolute quasi-judicial immunity and that such immunity protects them not only from litigation but also from the burdens of litigation. They argue that the district court was obligated to grant their motion for judgment on the pleadings and seek a writ of mandamus to compel the district court to dismiss the proceedings against them.
A writ of mandamus is an extraordinary remedy that will not issue if the petitioner has a plain, speedy, and adequate remedy at law.3 Whether to consider a petition for mandamus is entirely within the discretion of this court.4 The writ is generally issued to compel the performance of an act that the law requires as a duty resulting from an office, trust or station, or to control an arbitrary or capricious exercise of discretion.5 However, even when an arguable adequate remedy exists, this court may exercise its discretion to entertain a petition for mandamus under circumstances of urgency or strong necessity, or when an important issue of law needs clarification and sound judicial economy and administration favor the granting of the petition.6
Because this case involves an important issue of law, we take this opportunity to clarify the application of absolute quasi-judicial immunity.7
The granting of immunity "is a matter of public policy that balances the social utility of the immunity against the social loss of being unable to attack the immune defendant."8 Absolute immunity is a broad grant of immunity not just from the imposition of civil damages, but also from the burdens of litigation, generally.9 Judicial immunity originates from the common-law protection of judicial participants10 which formed a "`cluster of immunities protecting the various participants in judge-supervised trials'" that stemmed "`from the characteristics of the judicial process.'"11 Judicial immunity serves to "provide[] absolute immunity from subsequent damages liability for all persons-governmental or otherwise-who [are] integral parts of the judicial process."12 Indeed, a grant of absolute immunity applies even when a judicial officer has been accused of acting maliciously and corruptly.13 The initial purpose of judicial immunity was to "discourag[e] collateral attacks [against judges] and thereby help[ ] to establish appellate procedures as the standard system for correcting judicial error."14 Absolute judicial immunity has been extended to various non-judicial participants in the judicial process. The application of absolute judicial immunity to a non-judicial officer depends not on the status of the individual, but on the function the individual serves with respect to the judicial process.15 That is, absolute quasi-judicial immunity has been extended to individuals who perform functions integral to the judicial process. For example, absolute quasi-judicial immunity applies to witnesses, official or private, deriving their power from long recognized common-law principles protecting witness testimony.16 Additionally, absolute quasi-judicial immunity has been extended to prosecutors17 and executive branch officials acting in a prosecutorial capacity (i.e., administrative law judges, hearing examiners and agency officials).18 However, the United...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Thomas v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court of State
...H. v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 124 Nev. 36, 39, 175 P.3d 906, 908 (2008) (quoting State v. Second Judicial Dist. Court (Ducharm ), 118 Nev. 609, 614, 55 P.3d 420, 423 (2002) ). The double jeopardy issues presented by this case are important issues of law that require clarification. Furt......
-
Guzman v. Second Judicial Dist. Court of Nev.
...clarification and sound judicial economy and administration favor the granting of the petition." State v. Second Judicial Dist. Court (Ducharm), 118 Nev. 609, 614, 55 P.3d 420, 423 (2002). However, the writ will not be issued if the petitioner has a plain, speedy, and adequate remedy at law......
-
Harrison v. Roitman
...not just from the imposition of civil damages, but also from the burdens of litigation, generally." State v. Second Judicial Dist. Court (Ducharm), 118 Nev. 609, 615, 55 P.3d 420, 423 (2002) (citing James L. Knoll, Protecting Participants in the Mediation Process: The Role of Privilege and ......
-
Lund v. the Eighth Judicial Dist. Court of State
...479 P.2d 379. The confusion as to the scope and application of NRCP 13(h) is of statewide significance, State of Nevada v. Dist. Ct. (Ducharm), 118 Nev. 609, 614, 55 P.3d 420, 423 (2002) (explaining that writ relief may be warranted when an important issue of law needs clarification), and t......