Heinemann v. Patchey
| Decision Date | 24 March 2017 |
| Docket Number | No. 3:16-cv-774 (MPS),3:16-cv-774 (MPS) |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Connecticut |
| Parties | F. PARKER HEINEMANN and SUSAN VOIGT, Plaintiffs, v. ROSEANNE PATCHEY, Defendant. |
This case arises out of a dispute over the management of the affairs of Plaintiff F. Parker Heinemann, a man in his eighties in Old Saybrook, Connecticut. On April 13, 2016, at the request of his wife and children, a court in Florida declared Mr. Heinemann to be incompetent and appointed an emergency temporary guardian for him, defendant Roseanne Patchey. (ECF Nos. 10-2 at 2, 17-1 at 1, 17-2 at 5-6.) One day later, on April 14, 2016, a court in Connecticut declared Mr. Heinemann to be competent, and appointed his companion, Plaintiff Susan Voigt, to be voluntary conservator of his person and estate. (ECF No. 10-2 at 5-6.) On May 19, 2016, Mr. Heinemann and Ms. Voigt initiated this federal action, bringing Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment claims against Ms. Patchey under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 ("Section 1983"). (ECF No. 1.)
Plaintiffs seek a preliminary injunction to prevent Ms. Patchey from bringing Mr. Heinemann to Florida and interfering with his financial accounts. (ECF No. 10.)1 As set forth below, the preliminary injunction is DENIED, because it appears that Ms. Patchey was not acting under color of state law as required to sustain a Section 1983 claim. Plaintiffs have therefore not shown a likelihood of success on the merits or sufficiently serious questions going to the merits of the claim.
On February 10, 2016, Mr. Heinemann's son filed an application for involuntary guardianship in the Circuit Court of Florida. In Re: Frank Parker Heinemann, Nos. 16-GA-41 and 16-GA-42 (Fla. Cir. Ct.); see also ECF Nos. 10-2 at 2, 17-1 at 1. The court held at least one hearing on the application, at which Mr. Heinemann's wife and children were present or represented. Id.
In March 2016, aware of the pending Florida action, Mr. Heinemann's attorney, Howard Gould, filed a voluntary application in Connecticut Probate Court to have Ms. Voigt appointed as Mr. Heinemann's conservator of person and estate. (ECF No. 10-2 at 1-2.) On March 23, 2016, the Probate Court held a hearing on the application, which was opposed by Mr. Heinemann's wife and children. (Id. at 5.)
On April 13, 2016, the Florida Circuit Court determined that Mr. Heinemann was incompetent and appointed Ms. Patchey to be his emergency temporary guardian under Fla. Stat. § 744.3031. (ECF No. 17-2 at 5-6.) The letter of emergency temporary guardianship stated that Ms. Patchey had power "to contract; to sue or defend lawsuits; to control and manage property and income from any source; to apply for government benefits; to determine residence; to consent to medical and mental health treatment...." (Id. at 5.) The letter added that (Id.) The authority of the emergency temporary guardian appointment was set to expire in ninety days. (Id. at 6.)
On April 14, 2016, the Connecticut Probate Court appointed Ms. Voigt the conservator of the person and the estate of Mr. Heinemann under Conn. Gen. Stat. § 45a-646, with certain special conditions. (ECF No. 10-2 at 5-6.) The court noted that the but found that it did have jurisdiction. (Id. at 5.) The court also found that Mr. Heinemann had "the requisite understanding necessary to request a Conservator on a voluntary basis," and that "the possibility of undue influence is muted" by the fact of Mr. Heinemann's and Ms. Voigt's "unique relationship, in that Mr. Heinemann remains married, but has been with Ms. Voigt in some capacity, (friend, caretaker, companion) for approximately thirty years." (Id. at 6.)
On May 4, 2016, Mr. Heinemann filed an initial appeal of the Florida Circuit Court's appointment of Ms. Patchey as temporary emergency guardian. The state court docket reflects a "NOTICE OF APPEAL TO 2ND DCA ON NON-FINAL ORDER RENDERED 4/13/2016." In Re: Frank Parker Heinemann, Nos. 16-GA-41 and 16-GA-42 (Fla. Cir. Ct.).
On May 11, 2016, Mr. Heinemann's wife filed an appeal of the Connecticut Probate Court's appointment of Ms. Voigt as conservator. Denise Heinemann v. F. Parker Heinemann, No. MMX-CV-16-6015584-S (Conn. Super. Ct.); see also ECF No. 28-1 at 4-8.
On May 19, 2016, Mr. Heinemann and Ms. Voigt filed this lawsuit, bringing Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment claims under Section 1983 against Ms. Patchey. (ECF No. 1.) In the complaint, the plaintiffs alleged that Ms. Patchey, "acting under color of law, has contacted local law enforcement officials and requested assistance in forcibly abducting and transporting the plaintiff, Heinemann, to Florida against his will and contrary to the decree of the ConnecticutProbate Court." (Id. ¶ 7.) They also alleged that Ms. Patchey had directed third party financial institutions to freeze Mr. Heinemann's accounts. (Id. ¶¶ 8-9.)
On August 24, 2016, plaintiffs filed a motion for preliminary injunction, asking me to enjoin Ms. Patchey from moving Mr. Heinemann to Florida, order her to return any seized funds, and order her to rescind any directives to third party financial institutions regarding such funds. (ECF No. 10.) Attorney Gould and Ms. Voigt submitted affidavits supporting that motion.
Regarding transportation to Florida, Ms. Voigt stated that Mr. Heinemann's last visit to Florida had left him "shaken," and "hesitant to visit his family in Florida again," because Mr. Heinemann's family had him arrested, briefly detained by local police, and involuntarily admitted to a psychiatric facility. (ECF No. 10-3 ¶ 5.) Attorney Gould agreed that Mr. Heinemann "does not want to be transported to Florida, and is very fearful that the Florida order will be implemented against his wishes." (ECF No. 10-2 at 2.) Neither affidavit directly claimed that Ms. Patchey had taken actions to move Mr. Heinemann to Florida, but Attorney Gould did assert that Mr. Heinemann's "fear was heightened when he was advised that 1) the Connecticut conservator had been contacted by the Defendant to facilitate such arrangements; and 2) the Old Saybrook Police had also been contacted to 'assist' in the process." (Id. at 3.)
As for the financial issues, Attorney Gould explained that local managers at Liberty Bank and Wells Fargo told him that no one could access Mr. Heinemann's accounts because "the Defendant asserted that the assets were under the control of the Florida courts." (Id.) The Vanguard Group also stated that no one could access Mr. Heinemann's account until the conflict over who had legal authorization was resolved. (Id. at 3-4.) According to Ms. Voigt, these financial restrictions prevented her from paying the costs of Mr. Heinemann's health care, namely a visiting nurse, a physical therapist, and a home healthcare aide. (ECF No. 10-3 ¶ 6.)
After this case was filed, on August 24, 2016, Liberty Bank initiated a separate action in Connecticut to determine adverse claims to Mr. Heinemann's funds. Liberty Bank v. Susan Voigt and Roseanne Patchey, No. MMX-CV-16-6016170-S (Conn. Super. Ct.); see also ECF No. 28 at 2. On November 29, 2016, the Connecticut Superior Court ordered Liberty Bank to "honor any and all requests from Susan Voigt acting as fiduciary for Frank Parker Heinemann for the withdrawal of funds held on Mr. Heinemann's behalf at Liberty Bank." (ECF No. 28-3 at 1.)
While the appeal was pending in the Florida action, the Circuit Court issued a stay of its order appointing Ms. Patchey as emergency temporary guardian. In Re: Frank Parker Heinemann, Nos. 16-GA-41 and 16-GA-42 (Fla. Cir. Ct.); see also ECF Nos. 21 at 5, 28 at 2. Then, on March 9, 2017, the Florida Second District Court of Appeals affirmed the Circuit Court's decisions denying Mr. Heinemann's earlier motions to dismiss and to terminate the emergency appointment. (ECF Nos. 28 at 2, 28-2 at 1-3.) A hearing on whether the Circuit Court should terminate its current stay of Ms. Patchey's guardianship appointment is scheduled for April 5, 2017. (ECF No. 28 at 2.)
The Connecticut Superior Court has scheduled a hearing on the appeal of the Connecticut Probate Court's appointment of Ms. Voigt as conservator for June 16, 2017. (ECF No. 28 at 1-2.)
"[D]istrict courts may grant a preliminary injunction where a plaintiff demonstrates irreparable harm and meets one of two related standards: either (a) a likelihood of success on the merits, or (b) sufficiently serious questions going to the merits of its claims to make them fair ground for litigation, plus a balance of the hardships tipping decidedly in favor of the moving party." Otoe-Missouria Tribe of Indians v. New York State Dep't of Fin. Servs., 769 F.3d 105, 110 (2d Cir. 2014) (citation and quotation marks omitted). District courts have wide discretion indetermining whether to grant preliminary injunctive relief. Moore v. Consol. Edison Co. of New York, Inc., 409 F.3d 506, 511 (2d Cir. 2005). "Such relief, however, is an extraordinary and drastic remedy, one that should not be granted unless the movant, by a clear showing, carries the burden of persuasion." Id. at 510 (citation and quotation marks omitted). "Generally, the district court is not required to conduct an evidentiary hearing on a motion for a preliminary injunction when essential facts are not in dispute." Maryland Cas. Co. v. Realty Advisory Bd. on Labor Relations, 107 F.3d 979, 984 (2d Cir. 1997).
Plaintiffs' motion...
To continue reading
Request your trial