Clark v. Stone

• Citation: 475 F.Supp.3d 656
• Decision Date: 28 July 2020
• Docket Number: CIVIL ACTION NO: 4:19-CV-00166-JHM
• Parties: Jacob CLARK, et al., Plaintiffs v. Berndaette STONE, et al., Defendants
• Court: U.S. District Court — Western District of Kentucky

475 F.Supp.3d 656

Jacob CLARK, et al., Plaintiffs

v.Berndaette STONE, et al., Defendants

CIVIL ACTION NO: 4:19-CV-00166-JHM

United States District Court, W.D. Kentucky, Owensboro Division.

Signed July 28, 2020

Christopher D. Wiest, Crestview Hills, KY, Robert A. Winter, Jr., The Law Office of Robert A. Winter, Jr., Ft. Mitchell, KY, Thomas B. Bruns, Bruns, Connell, Vollmer & Armstrong, LLC, Cincinnati, OH, for Plaintiffs.

D. Brent Irvin, Kimberly J. Hawthorne, Olivia M. Peterson, Kentucky Cabinet for Health and Family Services, Frankfort, KY, for Defendants.

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

Joseph H. McKinley Jr., Senior Judge

This matter is before the Court on Defendants’ Motions for Judgment on the Pleadings, or in the Alternative, for Summary Judgment. [DN 23; DN 27]. Fully briefed, these matters are ripe for decision. For the following reasons, the Defendants’ Motions are GRANTED .

I. BACKGROUND

Plaintiffs Jacob and Genetta Clark, for themselves and as Next Friend and Guardian of H.C., a minor (collectively, the "Plaintiffs"), sued Bernadette Stone, Catherine Campbell, and Douglas Hazelwood in both their official and individual capacities. [DN 1]. Additionally, Plaintiffs sued Marcus Haycraft and Adam Meier, succeeded by Eric Friedlander, in their official capacities. Plaintiffs allege they were deprived of their First, Fourth, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendment rights by the Defendants in relation to an investigation by the Kentucky Cabinet for Health and Family Services ("CHFS") into suspected abuse of the Clark children. [DN 1 ¶ 2].

Jacob and Genetta Clark have three children together—C.C., age 16; N.C., age 14; and H.C., age 12. [DN 1 ¶ 3]. According to the Complaint, in December 2018, Mr. and Ms. Clark were experiencing disciplinary issues with their son, N.C., that extended to his behavior at school. [Id. ¶ 18]. His parents warned that if his conduct did not change, there would be consequences. [Id. ]. In mid-December, the family was at home and Ms. Clark was helping N.C. treat his acne. At some point, N.C. became upset, stood up, and slammed the door in his mother's face. [Id. ¶ 22]. When Ms. Clark opened the door, N.C. began using threatening body language. [Id. ]. Ms. Clark, concerned that N.C. was going to strike her, struck N.C. twice on his rear end with a wooden back scratcher. [Id. ]. When N.C.’s behavior did not improve, Mr. Clark struck N.C. five or six times across his rear end with a belt. [Id. ¶ 23]. N.C., attempting to avoid the strikes, pushed his arm down, and his arm was struck by the belt. [Id. ]. N.C.’s older brother, C.C., who attempted to intervene to stop his parents, was thereafter disciplined with the belt. [Id. ¶ 24].

The Complaint states that the next morning, N.C. apologized to his parents and acknowledged that the disciplinary measures taken were overdue given his outbursts. [Id. ¶ 25]. C.C., though, made a report to his school. The following day, Ms. Stone, a social worker from the CHFS, received information regarding the incident. [Id. ¶ 27]. Ms. Stone instructed the school staff to remove the children from their classrooms for interviews. [Id. ¶ 30]. According to the Complaint, the children were asked whether they were safe at home and whether they were being abused. [Id. ¶ 32]. During the interview, Ms. Stone noticed a red mark on N.C.’s arm which was photographed. [Id. ¶ 31]. Defendants dispute Plaintiffs’ claim that the red mark on N.C.’s arm was the only basis for Ms. Stone pursuing an investigation in this case. [DN 10 at 2 n.4]. Defendants’ Motion states that "C.C. also reported that his mother Genetta Clark punched him in his face and hit him in the crotch with a backscratcher." [Id. ].

Following the interviews with the Clark children, on December 17, 2018, Ms. Stone contacted Mr. Clark. [DN 1 ¶ 39]. Mr. Clark informed Ms. Stone that his religious beliefs instruct him to reasonably discipline the children and that corporal punishment is used only when necessary. [Id. ]. Ms. Stone directed Mr. Clark to bring his children into the CHFS to discuss the issue and to enter a prevention plan. [Id. ¶ 40]. Mr. Clark declined and said he would not do so unless required by court order. [Id. ¶ 41]. That same day, Ms. Stone filed three neglect/abuse cases in the District Court of Grayson County, Kentucky. [Id. ¶ 46]. The Plaintiffs claim there was no legal or factual basis for the cases filed by Ms. Stone because Kentucky law permits reasonable and ordinary discipline recognized in the community where the child resides. [Id. ¶ 49]. Further, Plaintiffs claim that Ms. Stone knowingly made false statements in completing her investigation. [Id. ¶ 50].

The case was first heard by a court on December 19, 2018. [Id. ¶ 53]. Plaintiffs allege they were given notice of the hearing only minutes before it was set to begin and thus were unable to attend. [Id. ]. The Plaintiffs claim Ms. Stone perjured herself at the hearing, which resulted in a court order that Mr. and Ms. Clark were not to use physical discipline on the children and were to cooperate with the CHFS. [Id. ¶¶ 56–57]. On January 9, 2019, a judge ordered Mr. and Ms. Clark to permit home visits according to Ms. Stone and her co-workers’ wishes. [Id. ¶ 58]. Mr. Clark objected, claiming a Fourth Amendment right for a warrant to be issued before a search. The judge informed Mr. Clark that he did not have a Fourth Amendment right when CHFS was involved and that if the Clarks did not cooperate, he would remove the children from their home. [Id. ]. Plaintiffs maintain that they have Fourth Amendment rights even when the CHFS is involved. [Id. ¶ 59].

On January 28, 2019, Ms. Stone and Ms. Campbell, along with a sergeant from the sheriff's office, came to the Clark's home. [Id. ¶ 60]. Mr. Clark posted the text of the Fourth Amendment to the home's front door and then videotaped the entire interaction with Ms. Stone and Ms. Campbell. [Id. ¶¶ 61–62]. Mr. Clark objected to the visitors’ entry but eventually allowed them in and said he was doing so under duress and coercion. [Id. ¶ 63]. On January 30, 2019, another hearing was held. Plaintiffs allege that at this hearing Ms. Stone explained to the judge that the Clarks were not cooperating because of Mr. Clark's use of the video camera. Plaintiffs allege this constitutes retaliation for the assertion of their First and Fourth Amendment rights. [Id. ¶ 66]. There was another home visit and another hearing before Plaintiffs’ claim the CHFS terminated its investigation of the Clarks. Plaintiffs allege that on August 1, 2019, the claims against the Clarks were dismissed with prejudice upon finding the claims baseless. [Id. ¶ 73]. During the over seven-month pendency of the CHFS's investigation, the Clarks were ordered to cooperate with the CHFS and to not physically discipline their children. [Id. ¶ 74]. The Clark parents maintain that this order caused substantial interference with their ability to direct the education and upbringing of their children.

Plaintiffs filed their complaint on November 20, 2019. [DN 1]. Therein, they sought prospective declaratory and injunctive relief against the official capacity defendants based on a claim they feared engaging in reasonable corporal punishment of their children. [Id. ¶ 79]. Additionally, Plaintiffs sued Ms. Stone, Ms. Campbell, and Mr. Hazelwood for several individual capacity claims. Specifically, Plaintiffs sued the three individual capacity defendants for two First Amendment violations [Id. ¶¶ 82–84], two Fourth Amendment violations [Id. ¶¶ 85–87], a Fourteenth Amendment substantive due process violation [Id. ¶ 80], and a state law malicious prosecution claim [Id. ¶¶ 102–110]. Plaintiffs also sued Ms. Stone for a Fourteenth Amendment procedural due process violation. [Id. ¶ 81]. All five defendants previously moved to dismiss the official capacity claims against them—specifically, the claims for declaratory and injunctive relief. [DN 10]. The Court granted the defendants’ motion. [DN 34]. The three remaining individual capacity defendants now move for judgment on the pleadings, or in the alternative, for summary judgment on all remaining claims. [DN 23; DN 27]. Plaintiffs filed a joint response to Defendants’ motions [DN 38] and Defendants filed a joint reply [DN 40].

II. STANDARD OF REVIEW

We must first determine whether to review Defendants’ motions under FED. R. CIV. P. 56 or FED. R. CIV. P. 12(c).

Rule 12(c) states that "after the pleadings are closed but within such time as not to delay the trial, any party may move for judgment on the pleadings." Such a motion is analyzed under the same standard as a motion to dismiss. However, both Plaintiffs and Defendants have attached and referred to documents outside of the pleadings. Specifically, Plaintiffs submit a declaration of their daughter, H.C. [DN 36], portions of the juvenile court record [DN 37], a declaration of their attorney, Christopher Wiest [DN 38-1], a declaration of father, Mr. Clark [DN 38-2], and a declaration of a former CHFS employee, Tina Moore [DN 38-3]. Defendants submit the CHFS's standards of practice [DN 23-3], an affidavit of Assistant Grayson County Attorney, Sidney Durham [DN 23-4], an affidavit of retired Grayson County District Court Judge, Shan Embry [DN 23-5], a DVD of the state court hearings [DN 24; DN 25], CHFS records [DN 26-1–DN 26-13], color photos of N.C.’s wounds

[DN 26-14], two newspaper articles pertaining to child abuse in Kentucky [DN 27-2; DN 27-3], redacted domestic violence records related to Mr. and Ms. Clark [DN 27-4], and a pediatrics study focused on children exposed to corporal punishment [DN 27-5].

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(c) requires a court to convert a motion for judgment on the pleadings to a motion for summary judgment where "matters outside the pleadings are presented to and not excluded by the court." Documents attached to a Rule 12 motion are considered part of the pleadings if they are referred to in the complaint and are central...