Chrissy F. by Medley v. Mississippi Dept. of Public Welfare, 92-7002
| Citation | 995 F.2d 595 |
| Decision Date | 07 July 1993 |
| Docket Number | No. 92-7002,92-7002 |
| Parties | CHRISSY F., By Her Next Friend and Guardian Ad Litem Donna MEDLEY, Plaintiff-Appellee, Cross-Appellant, v. MS DEPT. OF PUBLIC WELFARE, et al., Defendants, MS Dept. of Public Welfare, Thomas H. Brittain, Jr., Individually and as Commissioner of the MS Dept. of Public Welfare, Marion County Welfare Department, Hancock County Welfare Department, Sharon Whitt, Individually and as Supervisor of Marion County Welfare Department, Angela Lacy, Individually and as Caseworker for Marion County Welfare Department, Phillip Broadhead and Fred Cooper, Defendants-Cross-Appellees, Sebe Dale, Jr., Individually and as Chancellor for the Tenth Chancery Court District of MS and Garland Upton, Individually and in his capacity as Referee of the Marion County Youth Court, Defendants-Appellants, Cross-Appellees. |
| Court | United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (5th Circuit) |
James F. Steel, Robert G. Jenkins, Sp. Asst. Attys. Gen., Mike Moore, Atty. Gen., Jackson, MS, for defendants.
Sheila Brogna, Children's Law Offices, Daniel S. Mason, Furth, Fahrner, & Mason, San Francisco, CA, for plaintiff-appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi.
Before DAVIS and JONES, Circuit Judges, and PARKER. 1
This case comes to us on appeal for the third time. It involves allegations that defendants violated a minor's constitutional rights in Youth Court and Chancery Court proceedings in Mississippi. After trial, the district court refused to grant relief on claims made against all but two of the defendants. These two defendants, a Mississippi chancery court judge and a youth court referee, were found to have violated the minor's constitutional right of access to the courts. The district court also found that the referee had violated the minor's procedural due process rights. Both defendants appeal the decision of the district court. The guardian ad litem cross-appeals, seeking to resurrect her claims against all of the other defendants. We hold that the district court did not have jurisdiction to grant injunctive relief against the judge and referee. In all other respects, we affirm.
For the sake of brevity we refer the reader to the carefully detailed statement of facts in the district court's memorandum opinion and order. Chrissy F. By Medley v. Mississippi Department of Public Welfare, et al., 780 F.Supp. 1104 (S.D.Miss.1991). What follows is a brief summary of the most recent or relevant events in the long and tortured history of this case.
On July 8, 1988, Donna Medley, a California resident, filed a complaint in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi on behalf of Chrissy F., a Mississippi minor then six years old, alleging various violations of a vast array of constitutional and statutory rights and privileges. The complaint requested that declaratory judgment be granted against defendants Mississippi Department of Public Welfare (MDPW); Thomas H. Brittain, Commissioner of MDPW; Mississippi Attorney General Mike Moore; Sebe Dale, Jr., Chancellor of the Tenth Chancery Court District of Mississippi; Richard Douglas, District Attorney for the Fifteenth Circuit Court District; Sharon Whitt, Supervisor of the Marion County Welfare Department; Jeanette Werbley, Supervisor of the Hancock County Welfare Department; Angela Lacy, a caseworker with the Marion County Welfare Department (state defendants); Dr. Franklin D. Jones; Dr. S. Kimball Love; Timothy Charles Foxworth, father of Chrissy F.; and Does 1-25; alleging that these defendants had violated the minor's right not to be deprived of state and federally created benefits of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, rights to freedom from harm and violation of the Fourteenth Amendment, 42 U.S.C. § 5101, et seq., and an order issued by the Juvenile Court of the San Francisco Superior Court of California.
The complaint initially sought to have the United States District Court set aside the custody rulings of Chancellor Dale, a Mississippi Chancery Court judge, and award custody of Chrissy F. to the San Francisco Department of Social Services or to place her in an alleged neutral and stable setting, not with any maternal or paternal relatives, in cooperation with the National Children's Advocacy Center in Huntsville, Alabama. Additionally, the complaint sought an order requiring all defendants to pay for a comprehensive physical, psychological, and psychiatric evaluation of Chrissy F., and to force them to file a petition in the Youth Court of Hancock County, Mississippi, on behalf of the minor, to immediately investigate and pursue reports of sexual and psychological abuse.
Additionally, the complaint sought compensatory and punitive damages against all of the defendants except Youth Court Referee Upton and Chancellor Dale. The defendants moved to dismiss the complaints pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.Proc. § 12(b)(1), or in the alternative, moved to dismiss pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.Proc. § 12(b)(6). On August 26, 1988, the district court granted the § 12(b)(1) motion, finding that the complaint was "inextricably intertwined" with the state court judgment.
We reversed and remanded the case to the district court, Chrissy F. v. Mississippi Department of Public Welfare, 883 F.2d 25 (5th Cir.1989) (Chrissy I ), directing the district court to hold a hearing to determine if Donna Medley should be appointed as guardian ad litem for Chrissy F. in these proceedings. In that opinion, we did not address any of the jurisdictional issues raised in the appeal such as the collateral attack on state court orders domestic relations exception, or immunity questions before the court.
On remand, the district court appointed Donna Medley as guardian ad litem for Chrissy F. The court subsequently dismissed as defendants, by agreement with the plaintiff, Dr. Franklin Jones, Dr. Kimball Love, and Attorney General Mike Moore. The remaining parties conducted discovery and depositions. The defendants filed motions to dismiss or for summary judgment on March 30, 1990, on the grounds of Eleventh Amendment immunity, qualified immunity, absolute judicial immunity, and absolute prosecutorial immunity.
The district court denied the motions to dismiss except as to the Eleventh Amendment immunity from damages of the state defendants in their official capacities and as to absolute immunity and damages of the guardians ad litem, Broadhead and Cooper. The state defendants and District Attorney Douglas immediately appealed the denial of their immunity claims to this court. We affirmed the district court's opinion in Chrissy F. v. Mississippi Department of Public Welfare, et al., 925 F.2d 844 (5th Cir.1991) (Chrissy II ). Our holding was, however, strictly limited to issues of absolute and qualified immunity from personal judgments for money damages, over which this court has interlocutory appellate jurisdiction. The immunity questions were decided only as to those defendants against whom Chrissy sought monetary damages--District Attorney Douglass, and Mississippi social workers Brittain, Whitt, Lacy and Werbley. Chrissy II did not consider the general defense of failure to state a claim or the availability of declaratory and injunctive relief. 925 F.2d at 849, 851.
The district court held a nonjury trial on the merits in June, 1991. Later, the court issued a lengthy memorandum opinion and order, dismissing all remaining claims against the defendants except Chancellor Dale and Youth Court Referee Upton. The district court found that Dale and Upton had violated Chrissy's right of access to courts. The district court also found that Upton had violated Chrissy's procedural due process rights. The district court enjoined Upton, in his capacity as Youth Court Referee of Marion County, Mississippi, to conduct a new youth court hearing to reexamine the allegation of Chrissy's sexual abuse. This appeal followed.
Appellants Dale and Upton argue that the district court had no subject matter jurisdiction to review collateral attacks on state court judgments. They contend that the relief sought by Chrissy F. in federal district court was essentially a reversal of the Chancery Court custody ruling. They also argue that the district court's order enjoining Upton to conduct a new hearing actually does reverse the final and definitive orders of the Chancery Court and Youth Court. They argue that Chrissy's only recourse was to seek review in the Mississippi state court system and then ultimately in the United States Supreme Court.
Chrissy F. defends the district court's ruling by pointing to the Fifth Circuit's previous reversal of the district court's dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The appellees argue that the Fifth Circuit implicitly found subject matter jurisdiction by remanding to the district court for the appointment of a guardian ad litem. The appellees further assert that Chrissy F. did not seek and has not obtained a reversal of the state court custody decree in federal court. Rather, they argue that the district court's order enjoining Upton to hold another abuse adjudication is designed to insure that the proceeding conforms to her statutory and constitutional rights. Finally, they contend that Chrissy F. was not a party in the Chancery Court proceeding before Judge Dale, which originated as a divorce action between her parents, and therefore could not seek review in the state appellate courts.
The Supreme Court has stated that a "United States district court has no authority to review final...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Marisol A. By Next Friend Forbes v. Giuliani
... ... upon the Adoption Assistance and Child Welfare Act, including the provision herein referred to ... ' procedural due process claims); Chrissy F. ex rel. Medley v. Mississippi Dep't of Pub ... upon a specific provision of New York's Public Health Law that vests substantial, if not total, ... ...
-
Jordaan v. Hall
...doctrine merely by recasting a complaint in the form of a federal civil rights action. See Chrissy F. By Medley v. Mississippi Department of Public Welfare, 995 F.2d 595, 598-99 (5th Cir. 1993), cert. denied, 510 U.S. 1214, 114 S.Ct. 1336, 127 L.Ed.2d 684 (1994); Hale, 786 F.2d at 690-91; R......
-
Winchester v. Little
... ... 450, 70 L.Ed.2d 509 (1981) (holding that a public defender, although an employee of the state, ... litem for a child is not a state actor); Chrissy F. v. Mississippi Dep't of Pub. Welfare, 780 ... ...
-
Storyville Dist. New Orleans Llc v. Canal St. Dev. Corp..
... ... Development Corporation (CSDC), 1 a public benefit, non-profit corporation, to stimulate ... Chrissy F. by Medley v. Mississippi Dep't of Public ... ...
-
Forum shopping for arbitration decisions: federal courts' use of antisuit injunctions against state courts.
...sought an appeal in federal court from the state court decisions"), and Chrissy F. ex rel. Medley v. Mississippi Dep't of Pub. Welfare, 995 F.2d 595 (5th Cir. 1993) (finding that the district court lacked jurisdiction to order a state referee to hold a new trial where the grounds for relief......