Hootstein v. Collins

• Decision Date: 19 November 2009
• Docket Number: No. 08-CV-30113-MAP.,08-CV-30113-MAP.
• Citation: 670 F.Supp.2d 110
• Parties: Michael HOOTSTEIN, et al., Plaintiffs v. Joseph COLLINS, et al., Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of Massachusetts

670 F.Supp.2d 110

Michael HOOTSTEIN, et al., Plaintiffs v. Joseph COLLINS, et al., Defendants.

No. 08-CV-30113-MAP.

United States District Court, D. Massachusetts.

November 19, 2009.

Mary-Elizabeth S. Fox, Law Office of Mare S. Fox, Shutesbury, MA, for Plaintiffs.

William P. O'Neill, Office of the Attorney General, Springfield, MA, for Defendants.

Doris H. White, Attorney General's Office, Boston, MA, for Interested Party.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER REGARDING DEFENDANT LEWIS "HARRY" SPENCE'S MOTION TO DISMISS PLAINTIFFS' AMENDED COMPLAINT (Dkt. No. 47)

PONSOR, District Judge.

I. INTRODUCTION

Plaintiffs Michael Hootstein, Kathlyn Stein, and their minor grandchild, M.R. (collectively, "Plaintiffs"), filed suit against a number of current and former employees of the Massachusetts Department of Children and Families ("DCF"),¹ alleging, inter alia, that Defendants violated Plaintiffs' constitutional rights under the First, Fourth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution, deprived them of civil rights guaranteed by Massachusetts law, and failed to comply with Mass. Gen. Laws ch.66A and numerous state regulations. All of these allegations relate to abuses that Plaintiffs claim they suffered during the course of child custody proceedings in both Juvenile and Family and Probate courts from January 2004 to September 25, 2006.

Plaintiffs originally filed suit against five current or former DCF employees in their individual capacities, seeking monetary damages. After receiving permission from this court to amend their complaint, on May 5, 2009, Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint to add a claim for "injunctive and equity relief" against former DCF Commissioner, Lewis "Harry" Spence ("Defendant Spence"), in his official capacity. In the motion currently at issue, Defendant Spence moves to dismiss the claim for injunctive and equitable relief against him in his official capacity (he was not named in his individual capacity) under Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim for which relief can be granted. Defendant Spence claims that the suit against him is precluded by the Eleventh Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. For the reasons cited below, Defendant Spence's motion to dismiss will be ALLOWED.

II. FACTS²

Plaintiffs Michael Hootstein and Kathlyn Stein ("Plaintiff Grandparents") are the maternal grandparents of M.R. (the "grandson"), a minor child who first came to DCF's attention when the agency began investigating reports that his biological parents were abusing and/or neglecting him. Plaintiff Grandparents were actively involved in this investigation from the beginning, informing DCF that their daughter, their grandson's mother, suffered from an untreated mental health disability that negatively affected her capacity to take care of their grandson.

On several occasions, Plaintiff Grandparents contacted DCF or filed formal complaints, alleging that their grandson was being emotionally abused by his mother and by the DCF social worker assigned to the investigation. Eventually, the grandson began staying with Plaintiff Grandparents three or four nights a week, and Plaintiff Grandparents sought and obtained written consent from their grandson's parents to seek permanent co-guardianship. Some time in mid-2004, Plaintiff Grandparents formally petitioned the Greenfield Family and Probate Court for approval of this guardianship arrangement.

Plaintiff Grandparents allege that, during the course of the custody proceedings that followed in both the Juvenile and Family and Probate Courts, various members of DCF: (1) obstructed the ultimate resolution of their petition for guardianship by filing "secret" petitions with the Greenfield Juvenile Court that purposefully omitted or otherwise concealed material information provided by Plaintiff Grandparents; (2) threatened Plaintiff Grandparents that they would never see their grandson again if they challenged DCF's actions in court; (3) placed the grandson in a foster home where he was subjected to emotional abuse; (4) forced Plaintiff Grandparents and their dog to undergo unnecessary psychological evaluations; (5) prevented Plaintiff Grandparents from attending various hearings about their grandson and defamed Plaintiff Grandparents in those proceedings; (6) engaged in a number of discriminatory practices against Mr. Hootstein because of his gender; (7) failed to investigate various complaints of abuse and discrimination against DCF employees, as required by the department's regulations; (8) forcefully removed the grandson from their custody in violation of DCF regulations; and (10) conspired together to violate various Massachusetts statutes, DCF regulations, and Plaintiffs' constitutional rights.

Regardless of whether this discriminatory conduct actually occurred or not—and this court can obviously take no position on the truth of these allegations at this time— ultimately, on September 25, 2006, the Greenfield Division of the Juvenile Court granted Plaintiff Grandparents' guardianship petition.

According to Plaintiffs, Defendant Spence knew about Plaintiff Grandparents' repeated allegations of abuse, discrimination, and retaliation because Plaintiff Grandparents detailed DCF's actions in numerous complaints that they submitted directly to Defendant Spence in phone calls, letters, faxes, and in at least one face-to-face meeting. Plaintiff Grandparents also claim that Defendant Spence was aware of their alleged mistreatment because they communicated their allegations to DCF's ombudsman, who reported directly to Defendant Spence. Despite all of Plaintiff Grandparents' purported efforts to encourage Defendant Spence to intervene on their behalf, they claim that he took no action to put an end to the alleged misconduct by DCF. Additionally, Plaintiff Grandparents also complain that Defendant Spence maintained a set of policies and procedures at DCF that empowered the various employees to violate their constitutional and statutory rights. Plaintiff Grandparents filed their Amended Complaint adding the count against Defendant Spence in his official capacity on May 5, 2009; however, as of July 25, 2008, Defendant Spence was no longer DCF Commissioner.

III. DISCUSSION

In Count XIII of their Amended Complaint, Plaintiff Grandparents seek "injunctive and equity relief" from Defendant Spence in his official capacity, alleging that he "continues to maintain" policies and customs that "caused injury to Plaintiffs, and continues to cause injury to other children and families" by encouraging "partisan politics, retaliation, and lawlessness against Plaintiffs and others on the basis of their protected political speech and due process activities in defense of a truly inclusive set of traditional American family values that include opposite sex marriages and relationships." (Dkt. No. 37, ¶¶ 199-200.)

This portion of Plaintiff Grandparents' Amended Complaint goes on to detail a number of Massachusetts statutes and DCF regulations that Plaintiffs claim Defendant Spence violated "and continues to violate." As part of the "injunctive and equity relief" detailed in Count XIII, Plaintiff Grandparents seek "their due Guardianship Subsidy support payments and services pursuant to 110 CMR 7.303," awarded retroactively, "with interest, penalties and related costs." (Dkt. No. 37, ¶ 198.) Defendant Spence has moved to dismiss the claim against him, arguing that it is barred by the Eleventh Amendment and the doctrine of sovereign immunity.

A. Sovereign Immunity Under the Eleventh Amendment

As a general matter, the Eleventh Amendment bars suits for money damages that are brought by citizens in federal courts against any state, including "official capacity" suits against state officials. Rosie D. ex rel. John D. v. Swift, 310 F.3d 230, 234 (1st Cir.2002). However, this proscription is subject to an important exception recognized over a century ago in Ex parte Young, 209 U.S. 123, 159-160, 28 S.Ct. 441, 52 L.Ed. 714 (1908).

Under the Ex parte Young exception, federal courts can enjoin state officials from continuing to violate the U.S. Constitution or other federal law, "notwithstanding the absence of consent, waiver or evidence of congressional assertion of national hegemony." Rosie D. ex rel. John D., 310 F.3d at 234. Thus, where a plaintiff seeks purely prospective equitable relief against individual state officers in a federal forum based on a federal right, the Eleventh Amendment is usually not a bar. Idaho v. Coeur d'Alene Tribe of Idaho, 521 U.S. 261, 276-277, 117 S.Ct. 2028, 138 L.Ed.2d 438 (1997). This exception is predicated on the legal fiction that, when a Plaintiff seeks only prospective injunctive relief and not retrospective monetary relief that would be paid out of the state's treasury, the suit is only against the state official and not against the state itself. Pennhurst State School & Hosp. v. Halderman, 465 U.S. 89, 102, 104 S.Ct. 900, 79 L.Ed.2d 67 (1984).³

The Ex parte Young doctrine, then, only allows federal courts to exercise jurisdiction over a suit in which the plaintiff alleges ongoing violations of federal law; suits that seek redress of past wrongs are still barred by the Eleventh Amendment. See Papasan v. Allain, 478 U.S. 265, 277-78, 106 S.Ct. 2932, 92 L.Ed.2d 209 (1986) (noting that "Young has been focused on cases in which a violation of federal law by a state official is ongoing as opposed to cases in which federal law has been violated at one time or over a period of time in the past."). Additionally, federal courts have no jurisdiction to entertain suits that seek to require that the state official comply with state laws. See Pennhurst, 465 U.S. at 106, 104 S.Ct. 900 ("[I]t is difficult to think of a greater intrusion on state sovereignty than when a federal court instructs state officials on how to conform their conduct to state law.").

B. Standard of Review

In determining whether the doctrine of Ex parte Young avoids an ...