Doe v. Woodard
| Decision Date | 03 January 2019 |
| Docket Number | No. 18-1066,18-1066 |
| Citation | 912 F.3d 1278 |
| Parties | Jane DOE; I.B., Plaintiffs - Appellants, v. April WOODARD, in Her Individual Capacity; Christina Newbill, in Her Individual Capacity; Shirley Rhodus, in Her Individual Capacity; Richard Bengtsson, in His Individual Capacity; El Paso County Board of County Commissioners, Defendants - Appellees, and Reggie Bicha, in His Official Capacity as Executive Director of the Colorado Department of Human Services; Julie Krow, in Her Official Capacity as Executive Director of the El Paso County Department of Human Services, Defendants. Parental Rights Foundation; National Center for Housing and Child Welfare; National Coalition for Child Protection Reform ; Parent Guidance Center; Mark Freeman; Pacific Justice Institute, Amici Curiae. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Tenth Circuit |
Theresa Lynn Sidebotham, (Jessica Ross with her on the brief), of Telios Law PLLC, Monument, Colorado, for Plaintiffs - Appellants.
Kenneth R. Hodges, Senior Assistant County Attorney (Diana K. May, First Assistant County Attorney, with him on the brief), Colorado Springs, Colorado, for Defendants - Appellees.
Kevin T. Snider, Pacific Justice Institute, Sacramento, California, filed an Amicus Curiae brief for Pacific Justice, in support of Appellants.
Darren A. Jones and James R. Mason, III, Purcellville, Virginia, Martin Guggenheim and Carolyn Kubitschek, Alexandria, Virginia, Diane Redleaf, College Park, Maryland, and Mark Freeman, Media, Pennsylvania, filed an Amici Curiae brief for Parental Rights Foundation, National Center for Housing and Child Welfare, National Coalition for Child Protection Reform, Parent Guidance Center, and Mark Freeman, Esq., in support of Appellants.
Before BRISCOE, LUCERO, and MATHESON, Circuit Judges.
I.B., a minor child, and her mother, Jane Doe (collectively, "Does"), claim that April Woodard, a caseworker from the El Paso County Department of Human Services ("DHS"), a state agency, wrongfully searched I.B. at the Head Start preschool program in Colorado Springs. Without consent or a warrant, Ms. Woodard partially undressed I.B., performed a visual examination for signs of abuse, then photographed I.B.’s private areas and partially unclothed body.
In their lawsuit, the Does alleged that Ms. Woodard and other DHS officials violated the Fourth Amendment’s prohibition on unreasonable searches and the Fourteenth Amendment’s protection against undue interference with parental rights and with familial association. The Defendants moved to dismiss.1 The district court granted the motion, holding that qualified immunity precludes the Fourth Amendment unlawful search claim and that the complaint failed to state a Fourteenth Amendment claim.
The Does appeal these rulings and the district court’s denial of leave to amend their complaint. Exercising jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, we affirm.
In reviewing the grant of a motion to dismiss, we accept the allegations in the complaint as true and draw all reasonable inferences in favor of the non-moving party—here, the Does. Mayfield v. Bethards , 826 F.3d 1252, 1255, 1258 (10th Cir. 2016).
In December 2014, I.B. was attending preschool at the Head Start Program in Colorado Springs.2 An anonymous source reported to DHS possible signs of abuse on I.B.’s body, including bumps on her face, a nickel-sized bruise on her neck, a small red mark on her lower back, two small cuts on her stomach, and bruised knees
. DHS caseworker April Woodard responded to the report, arriving to take I.B. to the nurse’s office.3 Allegedly acting on instructions from DHS supervisor Christina Newbill, Ms. Woodard removed I.B.’s clothing and visually inspected and photographed I.B.’s buttocks, stomach, and back using a county-issued cell phone.4
The Does alleged that the undressing and photographing were "executed under an unwritten, but well-established county-wide policy or custom encouraging the practice, often without first obtaining parental consent or a court order." Aplt. Br. at 5 ). They further alleged that Richard Bengtsson, then Executive Director of the El Paso County DHS, issued the policy, and the director of Ms. Woodard’s department, Shirley Rhodus, implemented it.
The following day, Ms. Woodard visited Ms. Doe at home. DHS did not suspect her of abuse, and she cooperated with the investigation. Ms. Woodard did not inform Ms. Doe that she had inspected and photographed I.B. in a state of partial undress. The case was closed as unfounded.
After DHS closed the case, I.B. told her mother about the incident, saying she hoped she would not see Ms. Woodard again because "I don’t like it when she takes all my clothes off." Aplt. App., Vol. I at 17. I.B. later said to Ms. Doe that Ms. Woodard had taken photos of her against her will. Aplt. App., Vol. I at 18. When Ms. Doe approached Ms. Woodard about her daughter’s accusations, Ms. Woodard at first denied them. Two months later, she reversed course and admitted that she did the inspection and took photographs. Ms. Woodard told Ms. Doe that a child abuse accusation and investigation takes priority over the mother’s parental rights.
The Does sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging violation of I.B.’s Fourth Amendment rights and violations of I.B.’s and Ms. Doe’s Fourteenth Amendment rights.5 The Fourth Amendment claims were based on both the visual inspection and the photographs; the Fourteenth Amendment claims only on the inspection. In addition to Ms. Woodard, the Does named as defendants Ms. Woodard’s supervisors, Ms. Newbill and Ms. Rhodus; Mr. Bengtsson, Executive Director of El Paso County DHS; Reggie Bicha, Executive Director of Colorado DHS; and the El Paso Board of County Commissioners ("BOCC"). The Does sought damages and prospective relief against a "statewide and local policy and custom" encouraging "strip searching children whenever injuries are alleged." Aplt. App., Vol. I at 40. The Defendants moved to dismiss based on qualified immunity and failure to state a claim.
A magistrate judge6 concluded Ms. Woodard and her supervisors were entitled to qualified immunity on the Fourth Amendment claim7 and dismissed the claim without prejudice. When the Does sought to file an amended complaint, the court rejected the request on futility grounds and dismissed the claim with prejudice.
The district court dismissed the Fourth Amendment claim against Ms. Woodard and Ms. Newbill because the law was not so "clearly established" as to "give Defendants fair warning that the taking photographs of portions of I.B.’s unclothed body required a warrant." Dist. Court Op. at 16.
To the extent the Fourth Amendment claim was based on the Defendants’ failure to show that the "special needs" doctrine justified the search, the district court recognized that a special needs search comports with the Fourth Amendment only if it is "justified at its inception" and "reasonably related in scope to the circumstances which justified interference in the first place." Id. at 19 (quotations omitted). But, the district court concluded, the Does’ complaint "lack[ed] allegations" the search was unjustified at its inception or was improper in scope. Id.8
The district court dismissed the Does’ Fourth Amendment claim without prejudice.
The district court dismissed the Fourth Amendment § 1983 supervisory liability claim against Ms. Rhodus and Mr. Bengtsson. Because qualified immunity shielded their supervisees, Ms. Woodard and Ms. Newbill, it also shielded them. Id. at 22. The court also dismissed the claim for prospective relief against Ms. Rhodus and Mr. Bengtsson, which demanded safeguards on storing photographs obtained in future searches, because it was based only on a "mere potential violation." Id. at 23-24.
The district court dismissed, for failure to state a claim, the Does’ substantive due process claims under the Fourteenth Amendment for violation of the parental right to direct medical care and of the right to familial association.
The district court dismissed the parental rights claim, stating that (1) the visual exam of a child was not "essentially a medical procedure"; (2) the complaint did not allege that the exam "affected [I.B’s mother’s] right to direct [I.B.’s] medical care"; and (3) the complaint did not allege that the exam caused any "interference with [I.B.’s] medical treatment." Id. at 31 (quotations omitted).
The district court dismissed the familial association claims, concluding the Does did not sufficiently plead that (1) the Defendants intended to separate I.B. from her mother or that (2) the Defendants knew their conduct would adversely affect the familial relationship. Id.
The district court also dismissed the Fourteenth Amendment supervisory claims against Ms. Rhodus and Mr. Bengtsson and the official capacity claims against Mr. Bengtsson and Mr. Bicha because the complaint failed to allege an underlying violation of the Fourteenth Amendment.9
When the Does attempted to amend their complaint, the district court denied the request, stating that the Does Aplt. App., Vol. II at 72-73 (citations and quotations omitted).10
The district court also...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
ETP Rio Rancho Park, LLC v. Grisham
...Dist, 716 F. Supp. 2d at 1059 n.2. "Executive action that shocks the conscience requires much more than negligence." Doe v. Woodard, 912 F.3d 1278, 1300 (10th Cir.2019). Rather, "[c]onduct that shocks the judicial conscience" is "deliberate government action that is arbitrary and unrestrain......
-
ETP Rio Rancho Park, LLC v. Grisham
...Dist., 716 F. Supp. 2d at 1059 n.2. "Executive action that shocks the conscience requires much more than negligence." Doe v. Woodard, 912 F.3d 1278, 1300 (10th Cir. 2019). Rather, "[c]onduct that shocks the judicial conscience" is "deliberate government action that is arbitrary and unrestra......
-
Ashaheed v. Currington
...the time of the defendant's conduct. Pearson v. Callahan , 555 U.S. 223, 232, 129 S.Ct. 808, 172 L.Ed.2d 565 (2009) ; Doe v. Woodard , 912 F.3d 1278, 1289 (10th Cir. 2019).The district court erred when it granted qualified immunity to Sergeant Currington on the free exercise claim on the gr......
-
Caldwell v. Univ. of N.M. Bd. of Regents
...strand of substantive due process, "[e]xecutive action that shocks the conscience requires much more than negligence." Doe v. Woodard, 912 F.3d 1278, 1300 (10th Cir.2019). Rather, "[c]onduct that shocks the judicial conscience" is "deliberate government action that is arbitrary and unrestra......
-
THE EMPTY PROMISE OF THE FOURTH AMENDMENT IN THE FAMILY REGULATION SYSTEM.
...id=6408 [https://perma.cc/9NAP-M8KT] (describing her family's experience during a family regulation investigation). (70.) Doe v. Woodard, 912 F. 3d 1278 (10th Cir. 2019) (dismissing, on qualified immunity grounds, challenge to use of "body check" in family regulation investigation); see als......
-
PROCEDURAL LOSSES AND THE PYRRHIC VICTORY OF ABOLISHING QUALIFIED IMMUNITY.
...of Columbia v. Wesby, 138 S. Ct. 577, 591 (2018) (listing a litany of facts presumably necessary to find similarity); Doe v. Woodard, 912 F.3d 1278, 1292 (10th Cir. 2019) (finding that qualified immunity protected a social worker who searched a child's genitals without consent while investi......