Griffin v. Strong

• Decision Date: 27 January 1993
• Docket Number: Nos. 91-4056,I-V,s. 91-4056
• Citation: 983 F.2d 1544
• Parties: Dorothy GRIFFIN, individually, Plaintiff-Appellee, and Steven L. Griffin, individually; Steven L. Griffin and Dorothy Griffin, as next friends for Angie Griffin, a minor, Plaintiffs, v. James R. STRONG, Defendant-Appellant, and Dennis Gale; John Does, individually and in their official capacities, Defendants. , & 91-4070.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Tenth Circuit

Page 1544

983 F.2d 1544

Dorothy GRIFFIN, individually, Plaintiff-Appellee and Steven L. Griffin, individually; Steven L. Griffin and Dorothy Griffin, as next friends for Angie Griffin, a minor, Plaintiffs, v. James R. STRONG, Defendant-Appellant and Dennis Gale; John Does I-V, individually and in their official capacities, Defendants.

Nos. 91-4056, & 91-4070.

United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit.

Jan. 27, 1993.

Steve Russell, Kathryn Collard, of Collard & Russell, Salt Lake City, UT, for plaintiff-appellee.

David E. Yocom, Salt Lake County Atty., Patricia J. Marlowe, Deputy County Atty., Salt Lake City, UT, for defendant-appellant.

Before EBEL, BARRETT, Circuit Judges, and KANE, ^** District Judge.

EBEL, Circuit Judge.

Defendant James R. Strong appeals from a jury verdict against him for violation of the familial association rights of plaintiff Dorothy Griffin. ¹ Plaintiffs Steven, Dorothy, and Angie Griffin brought a civil rights suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 ² against Strong, a police officer, and codefendant Gale, a social worker, alleging deprivations of various constitutional rights, and seeking damages, including punitive damages, arising out of the investigation and arrest of Steven Griffin on charges of rape and sexual abuse of a child. The underlying facts and early procedural history of this case are discussed in some detail in the district court's order granting in part plaintiffs' motion for partial summary judgment against Strong, Griffin v. Strong, 739 F.Supp. 1496, 1497-99 (D.Utah 1990), and thus the factual discussion here will be abbreviated.

I

Following the district court's summary judgment ruling, the remaining claims were tried to a jury. Strong's motion, after the close of evidence, for a directed verdict on plaintiffs' familial association rights claims was denied. The jury returned several special verdicts. One found Gale not liable for any of plaintiffs' claims. Another found Strong had violated the familial association rights of Dorothy Griffin but not those of Steven or Angie Griffin. That same special verdict then awarded damages to each of the Griffins on their familial association rights claims. The remaining special verdicts dealt with claims not before us on appeal. Strong's motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict or for a new trial was denied.

Based on the inconsistency between the jury's findings of no culpable conduct and its damage awards on the familial association rights claims of Steven and Angie Griffin, the district court declared a mistrial on those claims. Strong sought and obtained certification under Fed.R.Civ.P. 54(b) as to the jury's verdict and damage award against him on Dorothy Griffin's familial association rights claim, and now appeals. ³

II

On appeal, Strong contends the jury's verdict is not supported by substantial evidence, the jury improperly held Strong liable for defendant Gale's conduct, and the district court's denials of Strong's pre- and post-trial motions were error. When we review the adequacy of a jury's verdict, we are limited to a determination whether the record contains substantial evidence in support of the jury's decision. See Comcoa, Inc. v. NEC Tels., Inc., 931 F.2d 655, 663 (10th Cir.1991). Our review of the district court's rulings on Strong's motions for directed verdict and judgment notwithstanding the verdict, however, is de novo, applying the same standard used by the district court. See First Sec. Bank v. Taylor, 964 F.2d 1053, 1055 (10th Cir.1992); Goodwin v. Enserch Corp., 949 F.2d 1098, 1100 (10th Cir.1991). That is, " 'we may find error [in the denial of such a motion] only if the evidence points but one way and is susceptible to no reasonable inferences supporting the party [opposing the motion]; we must construe the evidence and inferences most favorably to the nonmoving party.' " Ralston Dev. Corp. v. United States, 937 F.2d 510, 512 (10th Cir.1991) (quoting Zimmerman v. First Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass'n, 848 F.2d 1047, 1051 (10th Cir.1988)). Finally, we review the district court's denial of Strong's motion for new trial for an abuse of discretion. See Sil-Flo, Inc. v. SFHC, Inc., 917 F.2d 1507, 1519 (10th Cir.1990). Our jurisdiction arises from 28 U.S.C. § 1291; we reverse.

III

To evaluate Strong's challenges, we first examine the nature of the right of familial association. See Kitchens v. Bryan County Nat'l Bank, 825 F.2d 248, 251 (10th Cir.1987). This court first recognized the right in Trujillo v. Board of County Commissioners, 768 F.2d 1186, 1188-89 (10th Cir.1985). We noted there the Supreme Court's enunciation of two types of associational rights in Roberts v. United States Jaycees, 468 U.S. 609, 104 S.Ct. 3244, 82 L.Ed.2d 462 (1984): freedom of expressive association, based on the first amendment, and freedom of intimate association, which the Supreme Court characterized as " 'an intrinsic element of personal liberty.' " Trujillo, 768 F.2d at 1188 (quoting Roberts, 468 U.S. at 620, 104 S.Ct. at 3251). While we did not identify the constitutional source of the freedom of intimate association in Trujillo, we relied on first amendment cases involving the freedom of expressive association as "the most appropriate analogy" in our holding that intent is an essential element of a § 1983 claim alleging deprivation of the right of familial association. Id. at 1189-90; accord Archuleta v. McShan, 897 F.2d 495, 499 n. 7 (10th Cir.1990); see also Rucker v. Harford County, Md., 946 F.2d 278, 282 (4th Cir.1991) (stating that Trujillo based familial association rights on the first amendment), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 112 S.Ct. 1175, 117 L.Ed.2d 420 (1992). But see Mayo v. Lane, 867 F.2d 374, 375 (7th Cir.1989) (citing Trujillo for the proposition that the right of familial association is based on the fourteenth amendment); Franz v. Lytle, 791 F.Supp. 827, 833 (D.Kan.1992) (plaintiffs relied on Trujillo for familial right of association claim under fourteenth amendment); Lucero ex rel. Chavez v. City of Albuquerque, 140 F.R.D. 455, 458 n. 4 (D.N.M.1992) (same).

We believe the familial right of association is properly based on the "concept of liberty in the Fourteenth Amendment." Mayo, 867 F.2d at 375; see Kraft v. Jacka, 872 F.2d 862, 871 (9th Cir.1989) (basing protection of intimate associational rights on the fourteenth amendment); IDK, Inc. v. Clark County, 836 F.2d 1185, 1192 (9th Cir.1988) (same); cf. Swank v. Smart, 898 F.2d 1247, 1252 (7th Cir.) (stating intimate associational rights not protected by the first amendment), cert. denied, 498 U.S. 853, 111 S.Ct. 147, 112 L.Ed.2d 113 (1990).

The Fourteenth Amendment embodies three different protections: (1) a procedural due process protection requiring the state to provide individuals with some type of process before depriving them of their life, liberty, or property; (2) a substantive due process protection, which protects individuals from arbitrary acts that deprive them of life, liberty, or property; and (3) an incorporation of specific protections afforded by the Bill of Rights against the states.

Miller v. Campbell County, 945 F.2d 348, 352 (10th Cir.1991), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 112 S.Ct. 1174, 117 L.Ed.2d 419 (1992). The freedom of intimate association is a substantive due process right, as is its subset, the familial right of association. Shondel v. McDermott, 775 F.2d 859, 865-66 (7th Cir.1985); see Archuleta, 897 F.2d at 499 n. 7 (contrasting procedural due process right at issue in that case). This substantive right is consonant with the right of privacy. See Fleisher v. City of Signal Hill, 829 F.2d 1491, 1499 (9th Cir.1987) (stating freedom of intimate association "substantially overlaps" right of privacy), cert. denied, 485 U.S. 961, 108 S.Ct. 1225, 99 L.Ed.2d 425 (1988); Arnold v. Board of Educ., 880 F.2d 305, 312 (11th Cir.1989) (characterizing right as "familial right to privacy"); see also Hodgson v. Minnesota, 497 U.S. 417, 446, 110 S.Ct. 2926, 2943, 111 L.Ed.2d 344 (1990) (family has a privacy interest in "intimacies of the marital relationship").

IV

In classic fourteenth amendment liberty analysis, a determination that a party's constitutional rights have been violated requires "a balancing [of] liberty interests against the relevant state interests." Youngberg v. Romeo, 457 U.S. 307, 321, 102 S.Ct. 2452, 2461, 73 L.Ed.2d 28 (1982). This balancing of interests has been applied in cases involving intimate association rights. See Winston ex rel. Winston v. Children & Youth Servs., 948 F.2d 1380, 1391 (3d Cir.1991), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 112 S.Ct. 2303, 119 L.Ed.2d 225 (1992); Arnold, 880 F.2d at 313; Franz, 791 F.Supp. at 833; Aristotle P. v. Johnson, 721 F.Supp. 1002, 1010 (N.D.Ill.1989); Whitcomb v. Jefferson County Dep't of Social Servs., 685 F.Supp. 745, 747 (D.Colo.1987). To determine whether a person's familial association rights have been violated in this factual setting, we must weigh two factors: the state's interests in investigating reports of child abuse, which is the interest served by Strong's conduct in investigating the claims against Steven Griffin, and Dorothy Griffin's interests in her familial right of association. Initially, we examine these factors objectively, that is, outside of the facts or subjective positions of the parties. Nonetheless, we do not evaluate constitutional rights in a vacuum. Ultimately, we must examine the parties' interests in light of the facts of this particular case. See Hewitt v. City of Truth or Consequences, 758 F.2d 1375, 1379 (10th Cir.), cert. denied, 474 U.S. 844, 106 S.Ct. 131, 88 L.Ed.2d 108 (1985). We weigh these interests to determine whether Strong's conduct in this case constituted an undue burden on Dorothy Griffin's associational rights. See Hodgson, 497 U.S. at 446, 110 S.Ct. at 2943 (familial privacy interests protected against undue state interference); Roberts, 468 U.S. at 617-18, 104 S.Ct. at 3249 ("choices to enter into and maintain certain...