DONALD M v. Matava

• Decision Date: 30 January 1987
• Docket Number: Civ. A. No. 84-1212-W.
• Citation: 668 F. Supp. 703
• Parties: DONALD M and Annette M, Plaintiffs, v. Marie A. MATAVA, individually and in her official capacity as Commissioner of the Massachusetts Department of Social Services, et al., Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of Massachusetts

668 F. Supp. 703

DONALD M^* and Annette M, Plaintiffs, v. Marie A. MATAVA, individually and in her official capacity as Commissioner of the Massachusetts Department of Social Services, et al., Defendants.

Civ. A. No. 84-1212-W.

United States District Court, D. Massachusetts.

January 30, 1987.

Marjorie Heins, Mass. Civil Liberties Foundation, and Keith Halpern, Silverglate, Gertner, Fine & Good, Boston, Mass., for plaintiffs.

John Eklund, Sloane & Walsh, and Suzanne E. Durrell, Asst. Atty. Gen., Government Bureau, Boston, Mass., for defendants.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

WOLF, District Judge.

Plaintiffs Donald M and Annette M, citizens of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, have brought this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action against various officials of the Massachusetts Department of Social Services (the "DSS"), officials of the Chelsea Memorial Health Care Center of Massachusetts General Hospital, and Massachusetts General Hospital ("MGH") as an agent of the DSS. Plaintiffs allege that defendants violated their constitutional rights under the First, Fourth, Ninth, and Fourteenth Amendments by unlawfully entering their home, by substantiating a report of child abuse against them without any supporting evidence, and by coercing them into counseling services by threatening to begin legal proceedings to terminate their parental rights. These acts, plaintiffs claim, violated their right to be free from unlawful searches, invaded their right to family privacy, and deprived them of liberty without due process of law.

Defendants have moved to dismiss or, in the alternative, that summary judgment be granted in their favor. Plaintiffs have opposed these motions and have moved for a stay to allow them to take the depositions of each of the defendants and to conduct discovery relevant to the dispositive motions. Defendants have opposed plaintiffs' motion for a stay and filed cross-motions for a protective order and to stay discovery while the dispositive motions are pending. While defendants have raised various defenses, the court today decides only the issues of absolute and qualified immunity raised by the public officials who are defendants.

For the reasons stated below, the motion to dismiss is granted with respect to claims for damages and alleged past misconduct against defendant Matava in her official capacity. Plaintiffs may, however, move to amend their complaint again in order to include a prayer for injunctive relief against Matava.

In addition, defendants Bronson and Focht are entitled to qualified immunity for their allegedly unconstitutional entry into plaintiffs' home. Defendant Mancusi is absolutely immune from suit for substantiating the child abuse report against plaintiffs. The other defendants acting as public officials are also entitled to equal immunity to the extent, if any, that their alleged liability derives from the alleged unconstitutional entry into plaintiffs' home or the purported improper substantiation of the child abuse report.

All of the defendants acting as public officials are also entitled to qualified immunity for allegedly coercing plaintiffs into attending family and marriage counseling sessions.

Defendant MGH does not claim a qualified immunity defense. MGH seeks dismissal of plaintiffs' claims for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. The court reserves judgment on this question pending possible discovery and further briefing.

I. FACTS

Plaintiffs Donald and Annette M are residents of Chelsea, Massachusetts and the parents of two minor children.

The defendants in this case are as follows:

1. Marie Matava, sued individually and in her official capacity as Commissioner of the DSS, the agency authorized to investigate and prosecute child abuse.

2. John Does 1-5, sued individually and in their official capacities as supervisors or policymaking employees of the DSS.

3. Mimi Rabinovitch, Lynn Focht, and Michael Mancusi, sued in their individual and official capacities as social workers employed by the Chelsea Memorial Health Care Center of MGH with which the DSS contracts for the provision of services in support of its functions relating to child abuse.

4. Deborah Hill and Marybeth Bronson, sued individually and in their official capacities as social work supervisors employed by the Chelsea Memorial Health Care Center.

5. MGH as an agent of the DSS.

The alleged facts of this case relevant to the pending motions include the following. In September, 1983 the DSS, acting through the MGH social workers, initiated an investigation of plaintiffs for child abuse and neglect. The DSS's investigation was triggered by an anonymous report that one of plaintiffs' children had been heard crying for prolonged periods. Plaintiffs allege that two social workers, defendants Bronson and Focht, entered their home without a search warrant and without plaintiffs' consent. It is undisputed that defendants did not have a search warrant, but defendants claim that they entered the home and interviewed plaintiffs with plaintiffs' consent.

Bronson and Focht filed a report, but the investigation was terminated when the DSS concluded that there was no evidence of child abuse and, therefore, the DSS decided not to substantiate the report. However, in about November, 1983 the DSS initiated a second investigation after Annette M allegedly told a worker at her son's day care center that she and her husband had had a fight the night before. Defendant Mancusi substantiated this charge on the ground that there was a risk of violence in the family. The report which was substantiated indicated that Annette M had told a day care worker that her husband sometimes hit her and the children. Annette M denies that she made this statement.

Plaintiffs claim that defendants Mancusi, Focht, and Rabinovitch, acting under the supervision of defendants Hill and Bronson, subsequently coerced them into participating in counseling services by threatening to go to court to take away their children. Plaintiffs further claim that these actions were taken despite the fact that defendants had no evidence of child abuse or neglect. The DSS eventually dropped the case, but stated that pursuant to Mass. Gen. Laws c. 119, §§ 51E-F, the plaintiffs' records would remain on file until their youngest child reaches the age of eighteen.

Plaintiffs' Second Amended Complaint seeks compensatory damages, punitive damages, a declaratory judgment that defendants' actions violated plaintiffs' rights under the United States Constitution, and a declaratory judgment that Mass.Gen. Laws c. 119, §§ 51A-51F is unconstitutional as applied to plaintiffs. The Second Amended Complaint does not request injunctive relief concerning plaintiffs' records.

II. DISCUSSION

A. Eleventh Amendment

Defendant Matava, sued individually and in her official capacity as Commissioner of the DSS, contends that the Eleventh Amendment bars plaintiffs' claims for compensatory damages against her in her official capacity, as well as the claim for a declaratory judgment concerning alleged past misconduct in her official capacity. For the reasons stated below, the court agrees.

The Eleventh Amendment to the United States Constitution bars suits against states in federal courts. Pennhurst State School & Hospital v. Halderman, 465 U.S. 89, 104 S.Ct. 900, 79 L.Ed.2d 67 (1984) (Pennhurst II); Edelman v. Jordan, 415 U.S. 651, 94 S.Ct. 1347, 39 L.Ed.2d 662 (1974). It also bars suits against state officials for damages where the state is the "real, substantial party in interest." Pennhurst II, 465 U.S. at 101, 104 S.Ct. at 908. In this case, the state is the "real, substantial party in interest" in the claim for damages against Matava in her official capacity as the Commissioner of DSS. This claim is, therefore, barred by the Eleventh Amendment.

The Eleventh Amendment also bars suits against state officials for declaratory relief for past unlawful conduct where there is no continuing violation and thus no need for injunctive relief. Green v. Mansour, 474 U.S. 64, 106 S.Ct. 423, 428, 88 L.Ed.2d 371 (1985). Plaintiffs argue that in this case there is a continuing violation of their rights because the DSS still has plaintiffs' records on file. Although plaintiffs' post-hearing memorandum states that they are seeking injunctive relief in the form of the closing and expungement of their file, plaintiffs did not request injunctive relief in their Second Amended Complaint. Therefore, plaintiffs may promptly move to amend their Second Amended Complaint to add a prayer for injunctive relief. Otherwise the claim against Matava in her official capacity must be dismissed.

The Eleventh Amendment does not bar claims for damages against officials in their individual capacities. Edelman, 415 U.S. 651, 94 S.Ct. 1347, 39 L.Ed.2d 662 (1974). Massachusetts law provides for possible indemnification of Matava if she is held individually liable for damages in this case. Mass.Gen. Laws c. 58, §§ 2, 9. The state does not, however, extend its Eleventh Amendment immunity to officials acting in their individual capacities by voluntarily passing employee indemnification statutes which arguably make the state the "real, substantial party in interest." See, e.g., Demery v. Kupperman, 735 F.2d 1139, 1146-49 (9th Cir.1984), cert. denied sub nom., Rowland v. Demery, 469 U.S. 1127, 105 S.Ct. 810, 83 L.Ed.2d 803 (1985); Spruytte v. Walters, 753 F.2d 498, 512 n. 6 (6th Cir.1985); Davis v. Harris, 570 F.Supp. 1136, 1138 (D.Ore.1983); Palmer v. Penn-Ohio Road Materials, Inc., 470 F.Supp. 1199, 1203 (W.D.Pa.1979); L. Tribe, American Constitutional Law 132-33 n. 22 (1978). Matava is, therefore, not protected by the Eleventh Amendment from a claim for damages against her in her individual capacity by virtue of the indemnification provisions of Massachusetts law.

B. QUALIFIED AND ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY

1. Plaintiffs' Motion for Preliminary Discovery

Each of the individual defendants, including Matava, has...