Grae-El v. City of Seattle
| Decision Date | 01 March 2022 |
| Docket Number | C21-1678JLR |
| Parties | ZION T. GRAE-EL, et al, Plaintiffs, v. CITY OF SEATTLE, et al., Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Western District of Washington |
ORDER ON SEATTLE CHILDREN'S HOSPITAL, BRENDA AGUILAR, DR. HANNAH DEMING, AND DR. STANFORD HEATH ACKLEY'S MOTION TO DISMISS
Before the court is Defendants Seattle Children's Hospital (“Children's”), Brenda Aguilar, Dr. Hannah Deming, and Dr. Stanford Heath Ackley's (collectively the “Children's Defendants”) motion to dismiss. (Mot. (Dkt. # 10); Reply (Dkt. # 28).) Plaintiffs Zion T. Grae-El and Caprice Strange oppose the motion. The court has considered the parties' submissions, the relevant portions of the record, and the applicable law. Being fully advised, [1] the Children's Defendants' motion to dismiss is GRANTED in part, DENIED in part, and DEFERRED in part.
This case arises from a report of suspected child abuse made by Natalie Long, an employee of Seattle Public Schools (“SPS”), to Child Protective Services (“CPS”), a component of the Washington State Department of Children, Youth & Families (“DCYF”). ) On November 28, 2018, Leslie Meekins, a teacher at Dunlap Elementary School, became concerned that one of her students-Ms. Strange's minor child, A.S.[3]-had been the victim of abuse. (See Id. at 11, 55.) Ms. Meekins, who is required by state law to report instances of suspected abuse, evidently relayed her concerns to Ms. Long. (See id.) In turn, Ms. Long “and two other SPS staff” each questioned A.S. about the suspected abuse in an unrecorded interview on November 28, 2018. (Id. at 11-12, 35.) During the interview, A.S. allegedly told Ms. Long that he had been hit in the stomach by his stepfather, Mr. Grae-El, and that he was experiencing pain in his leg and shin. (Id. at 11.) Ms. Long and her colleagues also observed marks on A.S.'s face that they thought “looked like someone grabbed his face really hard, ” but did not observe any bruising on A.S.'s stomach. (Id.) They reported these observations to Annaliese Ferreria at DCYF, stated that they did not think the Seattle Police Department (“SPD”) needed to be contacted at that time, and relayed that A.S. was not expressing a fear of returning home. (Id.)
That evening, Ms. Ferreria, along with others from DCYF and SPD, went to Plaintiffs' home to conduct a “safety assessment.” (Id. at 12.) Plaintiffs' children were not removed from the home at the conclusion of the “safety assessment” but the following morning, November 29, 2018, Ms. Ferreria arrived at Dunlap Elementary and called for SPD officers to place the children in protective custody. (Id. at 15.) Plaintiffs allege that, while at the school, Ms. Ferreria conducted a group interview of Plaintiffs' five children, [4] which she did not record because she anticipated that a “far more thorough interview” would subsequently be conducted. (Id. at 16.)
Later that evening, the children were transported to Children's where they underwent a lengthy and allegedly distressing examination that lasted into the morning of November 30, 2018. (Id. at 25-28.) Plaintiffs were not given an opportunity to be present during any part of the examination. (Id. at 28.) The examination was conducted by members of Children's Safe Child and Adolescent Network (“SCAN”) team, and was overseen by Dr. Ackley, who “was assisted during his examinations by several residents who were training to be either pediatricians or emergency physicians, ” including Dr. Deming. (Id. at 26.) Ms. Aguilar became involved when SCAN physicians asked her to meet with the children as part of their examination to conduct a “protection assessment.” (See Id. at 27.)
Plaintiffs allege that the children were examined as a group and that this format resulted in generalized observations that “did not specify consistently” which of the children made particular statements. (Id. at 26.) When the examination was complete, the SCAN team determined that all five of the children presented with physical signs or symptoms indicating abuse or neglect, which they indicated on Foster Care Initial Health Screen Forms that were signed by Dr. Deming and submitted to DCYF. (Id. at 26-27, 46.) Although Dr. Deming signed the forms, Plaintiffs allege that Ms. Aguilar, Dr. Ackley, and other unnamed physicians at Children's “allowed” Dr. Deming to do so. (Id. at 27.) Plaintiffs allege that the SCAN team erroneously determined that markings on the children's bodies were indicative of neglect or abuse, as opposed to “accident, normal childhood activity . . ., legal disciplinary tactics, and normal marking for children of their ages.” (Id. at 41.[5])
Following the medical examination, DCYF initiated a dependency action against Plaintiffs, removed the children from Plaintiffs' custody, and placed the children in foster care. (See Id. at 18, 36-40.) Additionally, following the SCAN examination, Plaintiffs were arrested, charged, and pled guilty to multiple counts of assault. (Id. at 33.)
Plaintiffs now contend that their guilty pleas were “extract[ed]” though “coercion, constitutional violations and malicious prosecution.” (Id.)
Plaintiffs initiated this action in King County Superior Court on or about November 19, 2021 (see NOR (Dkt. # 1) ¶ 1). Defendants the City of Seattle, SPD, Ryoma Nichols, and Daina Boggs removed this matter from King County Superior Court on December 16, 2021. (See NOR at 1.)
Plaintiffs allege that the Children's Defendants breached duties of care in the course of conducting the SCAN examination on November 29 and 30, 2018, and that, as a result of their negligence, they made “false determinations” of abuse that “direct[ly] and proximate[ly]” caused the children to be removed from Plaintiffs' custody. (Compl. at 25, 45-47.) They allege that Children's is liable for the negligence of its employees and also for its own negligence in failing to adequately supervise its employees and to intervene to stop their “obvious negligence.” (See Id. at 46-47.) Plaintiffs further allege that, in the course of conducting the SCAN examinations, the Children's Defendants violated their Fourteenth Amendment rights of familial association and conspired with DCYF to violate other, unspecified rights. (Id. at 47.)
The Children's Defendants move for dismissal of Plaintiffs' claims pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), arguing that Plaintiffs have either failed to plead sufficient facts to sustain their claims or that the alleged violations stem from conduct for which the Children's Defendants have immunity under federal and state law.
(Mot. at 2.) The Children's Defendants additionally request that the court award them the costs associated with this action. (Id. at 17.)
After setting out the legal standard that applies when the court reviews a motion to dismiss, the court turns to consider whether Plaintiffs' claims survive the Children's Defendants' motion, beginning with their federal constitutional claims.
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) provides for dismissal when a complaint “fail[s] to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6). The court construes the complaint in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party, Livid Holdings Ltd. v. Salomon Smith Barney, Inc., 416 F.3d 940, 946 (9th Cir. 2005), and, because Plaintiffs are proceeding pro se, does so liberally, see Resnick v. Hayes, 213 F.3d 443, 447 (9th Cir. 2000). “To survive a motion to dismiss, a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.'” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). “A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Id.
Plaintiffs proceed under 42 U.S.C. § 1983[6] and allege that the Children's Defendants violated their Fourteenth Amendment rights to familial association, which encompasses their right “‘to be with their children while they are receiving medical attention, '” and their children's rights to receive “‘the love, comfort, and reassurance of their parents while they are undergoing medical procedures, including examinations.'” (Compl. at 47 (quoting Wallis v. Spencer, 202 F.3d 1126, 1142 (9th Cir. 2000)).) Plaintiffs also allege that the Children's Defendants engaged in a conspiracy to deprive them of their rights. (Id. at 7.) The Children's Defendants contend that they are immune from liability under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Mot. at 5-7), and also argue that Plaintiffs have failed to state a claim for conspiracy (id. at 7-8). The court first considers whether Plaintiffs have stated a claim for conspiracy before turning to consider whether the Children's Defendants are immune from all liability under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
Plaintiffs allege that the SCAN examinations performed by the Children's Defendants were part of a conspiracy with DCYF to deprive them of their familial association rights by supplying “evidence favorable to or manipulable by DCYF” that would fit “the narrative brought to them by CPS”-that is, that Plaintiffs abused their children. (See Compl. at 28-29.) Although Plaintiffs do not describe the claim clearly in their complaint, they have elsewhere characterized this claim as one brought pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 241. (See SPS Resp. (Dkt. # 22) at 12 ().)
...
To continue reading
Request your trial