Hancock v. Miller, 2:19-cv-00060
| Decision Date | 27 March 2020 |
| Docket Number | NO. 2:19-cv-00060,2:19-cv-00060 |
| Parties | WENDY HANCOCK, individually and as next friend for B.B., Plaintiff, v. DEANDRA MILLER, et al., Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Middle District of Tennessee |
This litigation arises from a dispute between Wendy Hancock and the Tennessee Department of Children's Services ("DCS") that resulted in Hancock's two children being placed in temporary foster care. Hancock, acting on behalf of herself and her minor daughter ("B.B."), sues seventeen defendants under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and 42 U.S.C. § 1985, as well as a variety of Tennessee tort claims, and seeks a declaratory judgment of a state court order. Defendants have filed five motions to dismiss (Doc. Nos. 33, 50, 61, 74 and 76) that are ripe for review. For the following reasons, this case will be dismissed.
It is well established that to survive a Rule 12(b)(6) motion:
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555, 570 (2007)); Lutz v. Chesapeake Appalachia, L.L.C., 717 F.3d 459, 464 (6th Cir. 2013).
Defendants ask the Court to consider several public records exhibits that are the subject of two Motions to Exclude by Hancock. In the first motion, Hancock argues that the documents must be excluded because they are confidential. (Doc. No. 84.) Defendants, however, have provided an order from the DeKalb County Circuit Court specifically permitting the use of these records under seal in this case (Doc. Nos. 99-1 and 115-1), and certified copies of the records from the Circuit Court Clerk of DeKalb County (Doc. Nos. 53-56; 63-69). In the second motion, Hancock contends the exhibits should be excluded under Federal Rule of Evidence 201 because they are not "final orders" or because Hancock appealed at the state court level, as well as excluded because Hancock's custody proceeding was eventually dismissed. (Doc. No. 119.) However, Hancock offers no authority (or even reasoned argument) in support of these propositions. (See id.) Defendants respond that the exhibits may be nonetheless considered under controlling authority. (Doc. No. 121.) Federal Rule of Evidence 201, which governs judicial notice, contains none of the restrictions Hancock suggests. See Fed. R. Evid. 201. It specifies that the Court may take judicial notice of facts not subject to reasonable dispute that are (1) generally known within the trial court's territorial jurisdiction; or (2) can be accurately and readily determined from sources whose accuracy cannot reasonably be questioned. Fed. R. Evid. 201(b). The certified copies of court records challenged by Hancock meet these criteria. Further, the records are directly relevant to the First Amended Complaint. (See Doc. No. 34.) Hancock's motions to exclude will be therefore denied. See, e.g., Barany-Snyder v. Weiner, 539 F.3d 327, 332 (6th Cir. 2008) (); Wyser-Pratt Mgmt. Co., Inc., v. Telxon Corp., 413 F.3d 553, 560 (6th Cir. 2005) ().
Hancock separately moves to exclude another public record exhibit attached by Defendants Collins and Williams - the Standing Order for Designation of Substitute Judge (Doc. No. 74-1) ("Standing Order") - because she argues there is no evidence it was ever officially filed. (Doc. No. 90 at 2-3.) This motion will be denied because other Defendants filed a stamped certified copy of the same exhibit, providing that very evidence (see Doc. No. 69), and Collins and Williams have filed a Motion to Allow Substitution of a Stamp-Filed Copy to replace the inadvertently-filed unstamped copy (Doc. No. 86). The Defendants' motion to substitute will be granted. This exhibit is also directly relevant to the allegations in the First Amended Complaint. The Court will consider it and deny Hancock's motion to exclude.
Hancock resided in DeKalb County, Tennessee with two minor children. She alleges a conflict between her family and DCS dating back to 2010. This conflict arose when Hancock became active in the grassroots movement for child welfare reform, including "seeking accountability of [DCS] employees" and the exposure of "perverse financial incentives." (Doc. No. 34 ¶ 32.) She joined social media groups, including the "Family Forward Project" onFacebook, whose members posted stories unfavorable to state child welfare agencies and the foster care system.
In May 2017, Deandra Miller ("D. Miller"), a Dekalb County DCS caseworker, contacted Hancock to inform her that there was a referral against her that DCS needed to investigate. DCS did not pursue this referral.
In October 2017, Hancock's minor son was punished by both his school and the Dekalb County Juvenile Court ("Juvenile Court") for misbehavior. D. Miller visited Hancock but did not make personal contact with her and would not discuss the matter with Hancock's attorney.
On August 6, 2018, Hancock filed an unruly petition against her minor son. That same day, Hancock's son called the police to the Hancock home, during which visit the police found drug paraphernalia in the son's room. On August 7, Hancock's son left the home after an argument with Hancock. On August 8, D. Miller contacted Hancock regarding another DCS referral against her for abuse and neglect. That same day, Hancock went to the Smithville Police Department to report her son as missing.
On August 10, unbeknownst to Hancock, her son's father, who is estranged from Hancock, contacted D. Miller and arranged to bring his son into DCS. At the meeting, Hancock's son complained about verbal and physical mistreatment by Hancock, stated he was afraid to go home, displayed evidence of abuse, and reported Hancock's drug and alcohol use. DCS took possession of Hancock's son. That same day, Smithville Police called Hancock and told her that she had to come to the police station to receive important information about her son. Again, Hancock's attorney instructed Smithville Police not to speak to Hancock without counsel. Also on August 10, DCS contacted the office of Juvenile Court Judge Bratten Hale Cook to request an ex parte order against Hancock. Judge Cook did not consider the request due to his familiarity with Hancock.The same day Smithville Police obtained criminal warrants against Hancock for assault and contributing to the delinquency of a minor.
On August 13, without contacting Hancock or her attorney, D. Miller presented a verified DCS petition to Smith County General Sessions Judge Michael Collins. Hancock alleges that Judge Collins was without jurisdiction. However, a "Standing Order for the Designation of Substitute Judge," by Tennessee Supreme Court Chief Justice Jeffrey S. Bivins provides if Judge Cook "is unavailable or recuses himself for any reason on any case, then, in the interest of the efficient and orderly administration of justice, the Chief Justice, exercising his statutory and inherent power pursuant to Title 17, Part 2, Sections 201, 202 and 208 of the provisions of the Tennessee Code Annotated, and Rule 11 of the Rules of the Supreme Court, hereby designates and assigns the following current or retired judges to exercise such jurisdiction, subject to the availability and consent of such judge . . . ." (Doc. No. 86-1 at 1.) The list of judges includes "Honorable Michael Collins, Smith County General Sessions Judge." (Id.) The DCS petition contained numerous, detailed allegations concerning Hancock's parental behavior based on statements of her son and others. Hancock alleges that the DCS petition was fabricated to obtain an ex parte order to remove her children and it "falsely claimed" that she was a "drug dealer, drug addict, and was physically abusive to her children." (Doc. No. 34 ¶ 51.)
Judge Collins entered an ex parte Protective Custody Order (the "Ex Parte Order") that concluded there was no less drastic alternative available than to grant DCS immediate temporary custody of Hancock's children. (Doc. No. 64.) The Court appointed Sarah Cripps guardian ad litem for the children. According to Hancock, there was "no evidence" that B.B. was an endangered child. (Doc. No. 34 ¶ 57.) However, she believes that Smithville Police worked with D. Miller to "trap" her with a warrant so that her children could be taken from her by DCS. (Id.)
On August 15, in an attempt to locate Hancock and B.B., D. Miller, Smithville Detective James Cornelius, and Cookeville-based DCS attorney Tracy Hetzel retrieved images of Hancock and B.B. from Hancock's Facebook profile and publicly broadcast them on the national child alert system, identifying Hancock as a criminal defendant and B.B. as an "endangered child." (Id. ¶ 58.) Cornelius and DCS allegedly made no effort to contact Hancock's attorney.
On August 16, Hancock was arrested and B.B. was taken into DCS custody. Hancock was interrogated without her attorney. Her statements were used against her in juvenile and criminal court proceedings. (Id. ¶ 60.) At the subsequent hearing, Judge Collins agreed to recuse himself.
On August 17, both children were placed in the foster home of Fanetha Sneed, who provided foster care services through Keys Group,2 which held a contract with DCS to provide housing and care of children removed from parents. While in Sneed's foster care, D. Miller and DCS Dekalb County...
To continue reading
Request your trial