Anthony K. v. Neb. Dep't of Health & Human Servs.
| Decision Date | 21 November 2014 |
| Docket Number | No. S–12–736,S–12–736 |
| Citation | 855 N.W.2d 788 |
| Parties | Anthony K. and Arva K., individually and as guardians and next friends on behalf of their minor children, Ashley K. et al., appellants, v. Nebraska Department of Health and Human Services et al., appellees. |
| Court | Nebraska Supreme Court |
Amy Sherman, of Sherman & Gilner, P.C., L.L.O., for appellants.
Jon Bruning, Attorney General, and John L. Jelkin, for appellees Nebraska Department of Health and Human Services et al.
Monica Green Kruger, Omaha, for appellee Richard Bollerup.
1. Motions to Dismiss: Immunity: Appeal and Error.An appellate court reviews de novo whether a party is entitled to dismissal of a claim based on federal or state immunity, drawing all reasonable inferences for the nonmoving party.
2. Motions to Dismiss: Appeal and Error.A district court's grant of a motion to dismiss is reviewed de novo.
3. Actions: Immunity.A suit against a state agency is a suit against the State and is subject to sovereign immunity.
4. Actions: Public Officers and Employees: Pleadings.Official-capacity suits generally represent only another way of pleading an action against an entity of which an officer is an agent.
5. Actions: Public Officers and Employees: Immunity: Appeal and Error.In reviewing actions against state officials, a court must determine whether an action against individual officials sued in their official capacities is in reality an action against the state and therefore barred by sovereign immunity.
6. Actions: Parties.In an action for the recovery of money, the State is the real party in interest.
7. Actions: Public Officers and Employees: Immunity: Waiver: Damages.Sovereign immunity—if not waived—bars a claim for money even if the plaintiff has named individual state officials as nominal defendants.
8. Actions: Parties: Public Officers and Employees.Official-capacity actions for prospective relief are not treated as actions against the State.
9. Public Officers and Employees: Immunity.Where a court commands a state official to do nothing more than refrain from violating federal law, he or she is not the State for sovereign immunity purposes.
10. Public Officers and Employees: Immunity: Declaratory Judgments: Injunction.The State's sovereign immunity does not bar a claim against state officers which seeks only prospective declaratory or injunctive relief for ongoing violations of federal law.
11. Actions: Guardians Ad Litem: Damages: Immunity.A guardian ad litem is entitled to absolute immunity from any suit for damages based upon conduct within the scope of his or her judicially imposed duties as guardian ad litem.
12. Appeal and Error.An appellate court is not obligated to engage in an analysis that is not necessary to adjudicate the case and controversy before it.
13. Limitations of Actions: Pleadings.A challenge that a pleading is barred by the statute of limitations is a challenge that the pleading fails to allege sufficient facts to constitute a claim upon which relief can be granted.
14. Motions to Dismiss: Pleadings.To prevail against a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, a plaintiff must allege sufficient facts, accepted as true, to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.
15. Motions to Dismiss: Appeal and Error.When reviewing a dismissal order, the appellate court accepts as true all the facts which are well pled and the proper and reasonable inferences of law and fact which may be drawn therefrom, but not the pleader's conclusions.
16. Civil Rights: Limitations of Actions: States.The law of the state in which an action is brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012) provides the appropriate statute of limitations.
17. Civil Rights: Limitations of Actions.For purposes of selecting one statute of limitations, actions brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012) shall be characterized as personal injury actions.
18. Civil Rights: Limitations of Actions.In Nebraska, claims brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012) are governed by the statute of limitations in Neb.Rev.Stat. § 25–207 (Reissue 2008).
19. Limitations of Actions.A statute of limitations begins to run as soon as the claim accrues.
20. Civil Rights: Limitations of Actions: States.Although state law determines which statute of limitations applies to a claim brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012), the accrual date of a § 1983 cause of action is a question of federal law that is not resolved by reference to state law.
21. Civil Rights: Limitations of Actions.A claim brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012) generally accrues when the plaintiff has a complete and present cause of action.
22. Constitutional Law: Civil Rights: Pleadings.In order to state a cause of action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012), a plaintiff must allege facts establishing conduct by a person acting under color of state law which deprived the plaintiff of rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws of the United States.
23. Constitutional Law: Civil Rights: Limitations of Actions.A claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012) accrues when a plaintiff knows or should know that his or her constitutional rights have been violated. The plaintiff is deemed to know or have reason to know at the time of the act itself and not at the point that the harmful consequences are felt.
24. Limitations of Actions: Torts.The continuing tort doctrine does not delay when claims based on continuing torts accrue.
25. Limitations of Actions: Torts.The continuing tort doctrine is not a separate doctrine, or an exception to the statute of limitations, as much as it is a straightforward application of the statute of limitations: It simply allows claims to the extent that they accrue within the limitations period.
This appeal involves the second of two cases brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012) by Anthony K. and Arva K., individually and as guardians and next friends on behalf of their seven minor children. In both this and the first case, the plaintiffs alleged that over the course of the juvenile proceedings involving three of their children, the plaintiffs' constitutional and statutory rights had been violated.
The plaintiffs' claims against the State of Nebraska were determined in Anthony K. v. State, 289 Neb. 523, 855 N.W.2d 802 (2014) (Anthony K. I ), where we held that all six of the plaintiffs' causes of action against the State were barred by sovereign immunity. The instant case deals with the plaintiffs' claims against the Nebraska Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS), 18 DHHS employees in their official and individual capacities, and the children's guardian ad litem. Although premised on the same facts and arising from the same allegations as Anthony K. I, this case presents different issues for our resolution.
In the instant case, the plaintiffs appeal the orders of the Douglas County District Court that sustained the defendants' motions to dismiss. In particular, the plaintiffs challenge the district court's findings that the defendants were entitled to sovereign, qualified, absolute, and statutory immunities and that the plaintiffs' claims against the DHHS employees in their individual capacities were barred by the statute of limitations. For the following reasons, we affirm the dismissal of the plaintiffs' claims.
We review de novo whether a party is entitled to dismissal of a claim based on federal or state immunity, drawing all reasonable inferences for the nonmoving party. Michael E. v. State, 286 Neb. 532, 839 N.W.2d 542 (2013).
A district court's grant of a motion to dismiss is reviewed de novo. Estate of Teague v. Crossroads Co – op Assn., 286 Neb. 1, 834 N.W.2d 236 (2013).
The background information in this case is discussed at length in Anthony K. I . In summary, three minor children of the plaintiffs, Ashley K.; Anthony K., Jr. (Anthony Jr.); and Ali K., were removed from the family home in 2000. For various reasons, the children were not returned to the care of their parents until 2008 and the juvenile case was not closed until 2009.
The plaintiffs initially filed suit against the State, DHHS, the individual DHHS employees assigned to the juvenile case, and the guardian ad litem. However, due to lack of proper service, the district court dismissed all defendants except the State. Because more than 6 months had passed from the filing of the initial lawsuit, any service of process under the plaintiffs' first complaint would have been ineffective on DHHS, the DHHS employees, and the guardian ad litem. See Neb.Rev.Stat. § 25–217 (Reissue 2008). Therefore, the plaintiffs filed the present lawsuit against these parties under a separate complaint.
The plaintiffs alleged that DHHS, the DHHS employees, and the guardian ad litem violated the plaintiffs' right to familial integrity. They claimed that Ashley, Anthony Jr., and Ali were wards of the State from 2000 to 2009 and that the family was separated for too long. They alleged that DHHS and the DHHS employees failed to make reasonable efforts to preserve or reunify the family and that they had a duty to reunify the family sooner than when it finally occurred. The plaintiffs asked for declaratory judgment, general and special damages, costs, and attorney fees. They did not seek injunctive relief.
Richard Bollerup, the guardian ad litem for the minor children, moved to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. Subsequently, DHHS and the DHHS employees in their official capacities also moved to dismiss.
On September 1, 2011, the district court determined that DHHS and the DHHS employees sued in their official capacities were shielded by sovereign immunity from an action brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and could not be liable to the plaintiffs for monetary damages. It thus sustained the motions to dismiss as to the plaintiffs' § 1983 claims against DHHS and the DHHS employees in their...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Davis v. State
...394, 130 L.Ed.2d 245 (1994). See, also, Regents of Univ. of Cal. , supra note 87.89 See, e.g., Anthony K. v. Nebraska Dept. of Health & Human Servs., 289 Neb. 540, 855 N.W.2d 788 (2014).90 Adams v. State, 293 Neb. 612, 879 N.W.2d 18 (2016).91 See Will , supra note 86. Accord Wilkinson v. Do......
-
Gillpatrick v. Sabatka-Rine
...No. 07-cv-01361-REB-KMT, 2008 WL 4371906 (D. Colo. Sept. 22, 2008) (unpublished decision).53 See, Anthony K. v. Nebraska Dept. of Health & Human Servs., 289 Neb. 540, 855 N.W.2d 788 (2014) ; Doe v. Board of Regents, 280 Neb. 492, 788 N.W.2d 264 ...
-
Jones v. Custer Cnty.
...Laundry and Dry Cleaning Pension Tr. Fund v. Ferbar Corp. of Cal., 522 U.S. 192, 201 (1997)); see also Anthony K. v. Neb. Dep't of Health and Human Servs., 855 N.W.2d 788, 799 (Neb. 2014) (collecting Circuit Court cases). A. First Amendment Claim Jones alleges that "a condition of [her] bon......
-
D.M. v. State
...against a state agency is a suit against the State and is subject to sovereign immunity. Anthony K. v. Nebraska Dept. of Health & Human Servs., 289 Neb. 540, 855 N.W.2d 788 (2014) (Anthony II ). A suit generally may not be maintained directly against an agency or department of the State, un......