Coaxum v. Washington
| Decision Date | 26 March 2012 |
| Docket Number | CASE NO. C10-1815-MAT |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Western District of Washington |
| Parties | SAIDAH COAXUM, Plaintiff, v. STATE OF WASHINGTON, et al., Defendants. |
Plaintiff Saidah Coaxum proceeds with counsel in this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 civil rights case. She names the State of Washington, the Washington Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH), and state employees Anna Marie Thebo, Joel Roalkvam, and Bea Munoz as defendants. Plaintiff alleges violation of her federal and state constitutional rights in relation to the suspension and revocation of her in-home daycare license and a finding of child abuse. (Dkt. 36.)
Defendants move for dismissal of plaintiff's claims on summary judgment (Dkt. 41) and plaintiff moves for partial summary judgment, with a request for oral argument (Dkt. 46). Having considered the pending motions and all materials filed in support and in opposition, as well as the remainder of the record, the Court finds oral argument unnecessary and defendants entitled to dismissal of plaintiff's claims on summary judgment.1
Washington State's Department of Early Learning (DEL) licensed plaintiff Saidah Coaxum to operate an in-home daycare beginning in 1999. (Dkt. 25-1 (DEL Review Decision and Final Order) at 20.) The facts relevant to this case involve daycare provided by plaintiff to a child - "P" - on April 9 and April 10, 2008. (Id. at 21.)
P's mother, Erika Rivera-Flores, noticed bruises on P's inner thighs while changing her diaper in the afternoon of April 10, 2008. (Id.) P's father, Paulino Carmona, came to Rivera-Flores's house and took pictures of the bruises. (Id.) P also had an older bruise on her left knee, reported to have resulted from her collision with a piece of household furniture while playing. (Id.; Dkt. 54-1 at 37-38.)
Rivera-Flores and Carmona returned with P to plaintiff's daycare in the evening ofApril 10, 2008. (Dkt. 25-1 at 21.) Plaintiff denied the bruises were sustained at her daycare. (Id.) After the parents left, plaintiff called her DEL licensor, defendant Thebo, and left a message asking for a return call. (Dkt. 42-5 (Ex. E, Coaxum Dep.) at 8.) Plaintiff and/or her mother also called P's parents three times that evening. (Dkt. 25-1 at 22.) The parties agree that plaintiff and/or her mother communicated that P should not return to the daycare on the following day. (Id.; accord Dkt. 46 at 4.) Also, plaintiff conceded she told Carmona to make sure he knew what he was doing as reporting to Child Protective Services (CPS) "causes trouble." (Dkt. 42-5 at 9-10.)
A friend of Rivera-Flores made a referral to CPS on April 11, 2008. (Dkt. 43-1 (Ex. A).) On that same day, Rivera-Flores and Carmona took P to Swedish Hospital. (Dkt. 25-1 at 22.) Swedish Hospital made a referral to CPS, reporting the bruising as black and blue and appearing to have been sustained within the previous forty eight hours. (Dkt. 43-3 (Ex. C) at 2.) The examining physician, Dr. Sakata, recommended P not be taken back to plaintiff's daycare. (Id. at 3.)
The CPS referral on P was referred to the Department of Social and Health Services' (DSHS) Division of License Resources/Child Protective Services (DLR/CPS) for investigation. (Dkt. 43, ¶3.) DLR/CPS faxed the referral to the Seattle Police Department (SPD) for investigation of child abuse, assigned defendant Munoz as the DLR/CPS investigator, and notified DEL a referral of abuse and neglect had been screened in for investigation. (Id., ¶¶3, 7). DEL initiated its own investigation, staffed by Thebo and her supervisor, defendant Roalkvam. (Dkt. 44, ¶¶ 2-3, 7-8; Dkt. 45, ¶¶ 3, 5.)
The DLR/CPS investigation began with Munoz interviewing Rivera-Flores an d Carmona on April 14, 2008. (Dkt. 43, ¶¶4, 7-9.) Munoz observed P's bruising, Dr. Sakata's discharge summary, and the cell phone showing the three calls received from plaintiff, and obtained the medical records from Swedish Hospital. (Id., ¶¶7-10.) Munoz informed plaintiff she would be contacted at a later date. (Id.) Pursuant to DSHS policy and protocols, Munoz was not to interview Coaxum given the law enforcement referral. (Id.) Munoz proceeded to provide P's medical records, records regarding plaintiff's CPS history, and the photographs taken by P's parents to Dr. Naomi Sugar, a consulting physician board certified in child abuse pediatrics. (Id., ¶11.) Dr. Sugar, in a May 5, 2008 letter, opined that P's bruises were "highly concerning for inappropriate force used in positioning and holding a child for a diaper change." (Id., ¶11 and Ex. B.)
The DEL investigation began on April 14, 2008 with Thebo personally serving plaintiff at her home with a summary suspension letter. The letter described the facts leading up to DEL's decision as including the existence of "an active DLR/CPS investigation alleging Negligent Treatment or Maltreatment, or Physical Abuse of a child or children" in plaintiff's care, and described the referral - "(# 1902114)" - as alleging "a child sustained an unexplained injury while in [plaintiff's] care and that [plaintiff] attempted to convince the parent not to report the injury to the licensor." (Id., Ex. A.)2 Thebo and Roalkvam attest that, at that time, it was standard practice in the Seattle DEL office to issue a summary suspension when an investigation of child abuse and neglect was screened in forinvestigation by DLR/CPS. (Id., ¶7 and Dkt. 45, ¶3.)
Thebo asked to come in and plaintiff let Thebo into her home. (Dkt. 44, ¶9 and Dkt. 42-5 at 11, 14-15.) In addition to serving the summary suspension letter, Thebo asked plaintiff to start calling the parents of the children in the daycare and gathering information from the children's files. (Dkt. 44, Ex. B.) Thebo attests that she observed plaintiff filling out a Childcare Injury/Incident report form, which plaintiff backdated to April 10, 2008. (Id., ¶10 and Ex. C.) Thebo left once all of the children in the home had left. (Id., Ex. C.) Plaintiff did not see Thebo take anything from her home or notice anything missing after Thebo left. (Dkt. 42-5 at 11.)
Plaintiff sought a stay of the summary suspension of her daycare license and ALJ Desiree Hosannah held a hearing on May 20 and May 27, 2008. (Dkt. 25-1 at 24.) Witnesses at the hearing included plaintiff, her mother, Aileen Ellis, Flores-Rivera, Carmona, Thebo, and Munoz. (Dkt. 42, Ex. B.) ALJ Hosannah, in a June 27, 2008 decision, denied plaintiff's request for a stay, finding plaintiff's actions "troubling and of great cause for concern[]" and, if proven, to warrant the summary suspension of her license. (Id. at 2-3.) The ALJ also found plaintiff's "refusal to properly cooperate and document the events" at issue to present "sufficient concern for the children's safety and welfare[]" and the facts supporting a determination that plaintiff "attempted to coerce the alleged victim's parents to not report their child's injuries." (Id. at 3.)
On August 29, 2008, DEL revoked plaintiff's license. The letter explaining the basis for the decision noted, inter alia, plaintiff's failure toproperly report P's injuries, the report that she had attempted to persuade and coerce the parents into not reporting the injury, a conclusion that plaintiff gave false testimony at the hearing in stating that she wrote the incident report on April 10, 2008, and plaintiff's recent DEL history.
On October 4, 2008, Munoz received notice that the SPD had concluded its investigation and found insufficient evidence to proceed with criminal charges against plaintiff. (Dkt. 44, ¶14.) The police report stated: "Because of the conflicting statements given by the child's parents as well as by the caregiver[] I cannot determine whom, if anyone caused them." (Dkt. 19-1 at 19.)3 After receiving the police report, Munoz attempted to contact plaintiff by letter and telephone. (Dkt. 43, ¶15.) Plaintiff likewise attempted to speak with Munoz. (Id.) Despite the multiple attempts, Munoz and plaintiff did not meet to discuss the investigation. (See id., ¶¶15-16 and Ex. B at 5-6.)
On January 28, 2009, Munoz concluded her investigation with a founded finding of child abuse. (Id., ¶17 and Ex. B.) She noted, inter alia, plaintiff's failure to document and report the injuries, the report that plaintiff had pleaded with P's parents not to report the bruising, Dr. Sugar's report, an absence of evidence to suggest P's parents caused the bruising, the parent's report that P had expressed fear of going to plaintiff's daycare, and prior reportsregarding plaintiff. (Id., ¶17 and Ex. B at 6-8.) Munoz notified plaintiff by letter as to the decision. (Id., Ex. D.) An internal review, conducted at plaintiff's request, affirmed the founded conclusion, as explained in a letter dated April 3, 2009. (Id., Ex. E.)
On June 24, 2009, DEL issued an amended revocation letter. (Dkt. 45, Ex. B.) The letter added the founded child abuse finding by DLR/CPS as a basis for the license revocation. (Id. ()
ALJ Hosannah continued the previously scheduled summary suspension hearing so that it could be heard at the same time as the revocation hearing. (See Dkt. 25-1 at 44.) ALJ Hosannah thereafter left OAH and OAH reassigned the matter to ALJ Kingsley. (Id.) Believing the August 2008 revocation letter had been properly served on plaintiff, DEL moved to dismiss the matter for plaintiff's failure to respond. (Id.) ALJ Kingsley denied the motion and, on July 12, 2009, plaintiff was personally served with both the June 2009 amended revocation letter and the April 2009 letter affirming the founded abuse finding. (Id. at 26, 44.)
Plaintiff timely appealed both findings and OAH consolidated all three...
To continue reading
Request your trial