Leta v. Hamilton Cnty. Dep't of Job & Family Servs.
| Decision Date | 05 April 2023 |
| Docket Number | 1:22-cv-511 |
| Parties | Joseph Leta, Sr., et al., Plaintiffs, v. Hamilton County Department of Job & Family Services, et al., Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of Ohio |
ORDER GRANTING MOTIONS TO DISMISS AND DENYING AS MOOT JOINT MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER
Plaintiffs Joseph Leta, Sr., Nicole Leta, and Sherriden Weil filed suit against thirteen different governmental and non-governmental entities and individuals asserting violations of their constitutional rights after their children were vaccinated without their consent while in temporary foster case. Pending before the Court are (1) the Motions to Dismiss filed separately by the Hamilton County Defendants,[1] Defendant Necco LLC, the TriHealth Defendants,[2] and Defendant Cheryl Sakhi (Docs 11-14) and (2) Defendants' Joint Motion for Protective Order Staying Discovery (Doc. 25). All thirteen Defendants argue that Plaintiffs have failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, and the non-governmental Defendants argue that they cannot be held liable as state actors for violating constitutional rights. Additionally, Defendants move to stay all discovery until the Motions to Dismiss are adjudicated.
For the reasons that follow, the Court GRANT the Motions to Dismiss and DENY AS MOOT the Joint Motion for Protective Order.
The factual allegations in the First Amended Complaint are taken as true for purposes of the Rule 12(b)(6) motions.
Plaintiffs Joseph Leta and Nicole Leta (“the Letas” or “the parents”) are the married parents of five children referred to as JL1, NL1, AL, NL2, and JL2 (“the Leta children”). (Doc. 7 at PageID 30, 33.) Plaintiff Sherriden Weil is the maternal grandmother of the Leta children. (Id. at PageID 31.)
On January 10, 2020, JL2 (age 3) woke up from a nap and snuck out of the family's house while Nicole Leta and the other Leta children were in other rooms. (Id. at PageID 33.) A neighbor reported JL2's “escape” to the Delhi Township, Ohio police, who reported the situation to Defendant Hamilton County Job and Family Services (“JFS”). (Id.) The Hamilton County, Ohio Juvenile Court subsequently removed the Leta children from their home and placed them in the interim custody of JFS. (Id.) JFS then assigned the children to multiple foster homes. (Id.)[3]Three Leta boys-JL, AL, and JL2-were living with Defendant Cheryl Sakhi, a foster caregiver with Defendant Necco, a foster care agency with whom JFS contracted, by March 2020. (Id. at PageID 34.)
On September 2, 2020, Defendant Bailee Brown, the JFS caseworker assigned to the Leta family in their Juvenile Court case, informed Joseph Leta that his sons were scheduled for medical appointments the next day at Defendant Bethesda Family Practice Center (“BFPC”), and the parents could attend. (Id.) BFPC is a medical practice owned and operated by Defendant TriHealth, Inc. (Id. at PageID 32.) Foster caregiver Sakhi called BFPC and warned the staff there could “be trouble” if the parents attended the appointments. (Id. at PageID 34.) The Letas had never spoken to Sakhi previously. (Id.)
The Letas and Weil introduced themselves at the front desk of the BFPC medical office when they arrived the next day. (Id.) Joseph Leta asked who would be permitted with the children in the exam room given the COVID-19 protocols in effect. (Id. at PageID 35.) When told only two adults would be permitted, Joseph Leta suggested that it be Nicole Leta and Sakhi. (Id.) Sakhi then arrived with the three Leta boys and her own 18-year-old daughter. (Id.) Sakhi's daughter was holding JL2. (Id.) JL2 reached out to his mother, and Nicole Leta reached out to take him from the teenager. The teenager pulled away and twice told Nicole Leta not to touch her. (Id.) Any physical contact between Nicole Leta and Sakhi's daughter was unintended and incidental to Nicole Leta taking hold of her son. (Id.) Sensing there would be trouble about who was permitted in the exam room, Joseph Leta stepped outside to call his attorney, JFS caseworker Brown, and others. He was unable to reach any person for help. (Id.) When the Leta children were called into the exam room, only foster caregiver Sakhi and her daughter were permitted to accompany them. (Id. at PageID 36.) A staff member stopped Nicole Leta from following and said that Nicole Leta needed to sign a form. (Id.)
Several minutes later, City of Norwood, Ohio police officers arrived at the BFPC medical office and told the Letas and Weil that they had to leave the building. (Id.) JFS caseworker Brown later admitted that she directed “TriHealth/BFPC/[Defendant Constance ]Zimmer” to call the police to remove the Letas. (Id. at PageID 36.) Zimmer was the practice manager at BFPC.
The police were called at JFS's direction even though no police intervention was needed. (Id.) The Letas and Weil were sitting silently in the waiting room when the police arrived. (Id.) The Letas and Weil cooperated when the police officer escorted them out of the building. (Id.) Foster caregiver Sakhi was in contact with foster agency Necco seeking direction and support during this time. (Id. at PageID 37.) Sakhi spoke bluntly and critically about the Letas for eight minutes in front of the Leta children. (Id.)
During the medical visit on September 3, 2020, two Leta children, AL and JL2, were given several vaccinations without the Letas' consent. (Id.) Plaintiffs allege that TriHealth, BFPC, and three physicians with BFPC-Drs. Lorraine Stephens, Kaitlyn Steffensmeier, and Richard Okragly-“individually and jointly, all in joint participation and coordination with” JFS, JFS caseworker Brown and/or JFS section chief Sandi Webster, and foster caregiver Sakhi made the decision to give the vaccines to AL and JL2. (Id.)
The Letas submitted an inquiry to JFS about how the vaccinations occurred. They allege the vaccinations had been against their “rights, wishes, and religious beliefs.” (Id. at PageID 38.) Webster responded in a letter in part as follows: “Our agency attorney indicated your objection to getting your children's vaccination has been heard and ruled upon by the Juvenile Court.” (Id.) In fact, the Juvenile Court had not ruled on that issue, and the Letas allege that Webster deliberately lied. (Id.)[4] “Parents strongly suspect that Defendants JFS, Webster, and/or Brown played a direct role in authorizing vaccinations against Parents' consent, but discovery will be required to determined what occurred in the TriHealth/BFPC/Zimmer evasive, administrative mess, and who directed the decision-making that day.” (Id. at PageID 39.)
Medical records from the BFPC indicate three facts about who gave consent for the vaccinations:
(Id. at PagelD 37-39.)[5]
The Letas and Weil initiated this action on September 2, 2022, and then they filed a First Amended Complaint on October 31, 2022. (Docs. 1, 7.) Plaintiffs allege four claims against the Hamilton County Defendants, the TriHealth Defendants, the foster agency Necco, and the foster caregiver Sakhi collectively:
(Doc. 7 at PagelD 42-43.) Because the Plaintiffs allege a violation of parental rights in the first three claims, the Court assumes that the first three claims are brought on behalf of the Letas only. The Letas and Weil seek money damages for the alleged constitutional violations under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
All Defendants moved for dismissal pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and for a protective order to stay discovery pending adjudication of the Motions to Dismiss. Plaintiffs opposed all of Defendants' Motions, which are now fully briefed and ripe for adjudication. The Court held oral arguments on March 20, 2023. At that hearing, Plaintiffs moved for the first time to admit the Norwood police officers' bodycam footage into evidence for purposes of the Motions to Dismiss. Defendants opposed that oral motion and requested the right to supplement the dismissal briefing if the footage is admitted. The Court will deny the motion to admit the bodycam footage as unnecessary and untimely.[6]
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) allows a party to move to dismiss a complaint for “failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6). To withstand a motion to dismiss, a complaint must comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a), which requires “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 677-678 (2009) (quoting Rule 8(a)).
A complaint must include sufficient facts to state a claim that is plausible on its face and not speculative. Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555, 570 (2007). “A claim has facial plausibility...
To continue reading
Request your trial