Little v. Presque Isle Cnty.
| Decision Date | 30 April 2021 |
| Docket Number | Case No. 1:20-cv-11857 |
| Parties | LALANEA STAR LITTLE, individually and as next friend of minor child, A.L., Plaintiffs, v. PRESQUE ISLE COUNTY, DEPARTMENT OF CHILD PROTECTIVE SERVICES, DR. TIMOTHY STRAUSS, JULIE MCALLISTER LEAZIER, Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Michigan |
Honorable Thomas L. Ludington
OPINION AND ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS' MOTIONS TO DISMISS, DISMISSING DEFENDANTS MDHHS, PRESQUE ISLE COUNTY, AND JULIE MCALLISTER LEAZIER, DISMISSING ALL CLAIMS TO THE EXTENT THAT THEY ARE BROUGHT BY PLAINTIFF AS NEXT FRIEND OF A.L., AND DIRECTING PLAINTIFF TO SHOW CAUSE WHY DEFENDANT DR. TIMOTHY STRAUSS SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED
This matter is before the Court pursuant to separate motions to dismiss from Defendants Michigan Department of Health and Human Services ("MDHHS"), Presque Isle County, and Julie McAllister Leazier. ECF Nos. 14, 17, 32. Plaintiff Lalanea Star Little alleges numerous violations of state and federal law stemming from Defendants' termination of her parental rights. For the reasons set forth below, Defendants' Motions to Dismiss will be granted, Defendants MDHHS, Presque Isle County, and Julie McAllister Leazier will be dismissed, all claims to the extent that they brought on behalf of A.L. will be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, and Plaintiff will be directed to show cause why Defendant Dr. Timothy Strauss should not be dismissed under Rule 4(m).
The facts of this case are difficult to discern because the factual allegations of the Amended Complaint are sparse and often vague or ambiguous. Indeed, despite being 18 pages in length, the Amended Complaint includes a fact section comprising just six paragraphs. ECF No. 5 at PageID.28-30. Nonetheless, after carefully reviewing the Amended Complaint, certain factual allegations can be discerned.
Plaintiff Lalanea Star Little is a resident of Presque Isle County and the mother of some number of minor children, including a minor son, A.L. ECF No. 5 at PageID.28. Plaintiff suffers from borderline personality disorder. Id. The Amended Complaint names four Defendants: Presque Isle County, "Department of Child Protective Services," Julie McCallister Leazier—Plaintiff's "caseworker"—and Dr. Timothy Strauss—an employee or "affiliate" of Presque Isle County. Id. at PageID.27-28.
According to the Amended Complaint, "the Little Family has been under the control of Presque Isle County[] and its Child Protective Services Department[] since 2015." Id. at PageID.28. Sometime around 2015, Presque Isle County "held an emergency hearing to seize [A.L.] and terminate [Plaintiff's] parental rights." Id. At the time, Plaintiff was "hospitalized, under anesthesia, and could not attend the hearing." Id. Defendants allegedly knew of Plaintiff's condition but "would not allow [her] to attend . . . or even adjourn the hearing."1 Id. A.L. "remains under the control of Presque Isle County." Id. Furthermore, Defendants allegedly refuse to allow Plaintiff to visit A.L. unless she takes lithium, a medication to which she has had adverse reactionsin the past. Id. at PageID.29. Plaintiff claims that Defendant Leazier "advised [her] that she could not see [A.L.] until she submits to the government's approved course of treatment." Id.
Plaintiff also makes vague allegations regarding her other minor children. The Amended Complaint provides, "In 2017, and all times relevant thereto Defendants Child Protective Services, and their agents, recklessly caused numerous baseless investigations to be opened against the Plaintiffs [sic], each with different Case Plans, protocols, and conflicting mandates." Id. Plaintiff claims that "[t]hrough material misrepresentations and arbitrary methods, Defendants caused unreasonable and unlawful seizures of [Plaintiff's] children—and unreasonably denied unification of [Plaintiff's] children through willful and/or reckless misrepresentations to courts and law enforcement officials." Id. at PageID.29-30.
On July 8, 2020, Plaintiff, through her attorney, Allison Folmar, filed an eight-count verified complaint on behalf of herself and as next friend of A.L. seeking declaratory, injunctive, and monetary relief for: unlawful seizure of a person (Count I); conspiracy to deprive constitutional rights (Count II); intentional infliction of emotional distress (Count III); abuse of process (Count IV); breach of contract (Count V); negligence (Count VI); violation of Michigan's Persons with Disabilities Civil Rights Act (Count VII); and misrepresentation (Count VIII). ECF No. 1 at PageID.5-18. The caption of the Complaint named the following defendants: "Presque Isle County, Department of Child Protective Services, Jane Doe, Psychiatrist." Id. at PageID.1.
On July 9, 2020, summons were issued for Defendants Presque Isle County and "Department of Child Protective Services." ECF Nos. 2, 3. Nothing was filed on the docket for the following three months. On October 8, 2020, Plaintiff was directed to show cause in writing why the case should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute. ECF No. 4. One week later, the AmendedComplaint was filed, naming Dr. Timothy Strauss and Julie McAllister Leazier as additional Defendants and dismissing "Jane Doe, Psychiatrist." ECF No. 5. Summons were subsequently issued for Defendants Strauss and Leazier. ECF Nos. 6, 7. Shortly thereafter, Plaintiff filed a response to the Show Cause Order and moved to extend the time for service on all Defendants. ECF Nos. 9, 10.
In her Motion to Extend, Plaintiff explained that she had been "working to identify unnamed Defendants and serve them with a live pleading that reflect[ed] the appropriate posture of the case." ECF No. 10 at PageID.53. While this Court found no good cause for her delay, Plaintiff's Motion was nonetheless granted under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m) because, inter alia, "dismissal would [have] undermine[d] judicial economy by potentially bifurcating the case or spurring needless joinder practice." ECF No. 11 at PageID.57. Accordingly, Plaintiff was directed to serve Defendants Presque Isle County and "Department of Child Protective Services" by November 20, 2020. Id.
Despite this Court's Order, Defendants Presque Isle County and the Michigan Department of Health and Human Services—the entity that Plaintiff had apparently meant by "Department of Child Protective Services"—were not served until January 15, 2021. ECF Nos. 12, 13. Defendant Leazier was served the following day, January 16, 2021. ECF No. 16. The record reflects that Defendant Strauss has yet to be served.
In early February 2021, Defendants MDHHS and Presque Isle County filed separate motions to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).2 ECF Nos. 14, 17. After a stipulated extension, ECF No. 20, Defendant Leazier filed a motion to dismiss on March 5, 2021,ECF No. 26. Defendant Leazier later filed an amended motion to dismiss after two more joint stipulations between the parties. ECF Nos. 30, 32, 34. All three Motions to Dismiss have been fully briefed.3See ECF Nos. 27, 31, 35.
Under Rule 12(b)(6), a pleading fails to state a claim if it does not contain allegations that support recovery under any recognizable theory. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). In considering a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, the Court construes the pleading in the non-movants' favor and accepts the allegations of facts therein as true. See Lambert v. Hartman, 517 F.3d 433, 439 (6th Cir. 2008). The pleader need not provide "detailed factual allegations" to survive dismissal, but the "obligation to provide the 'grounds' of his 'entitle[ment] to relief' requires more than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do." Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007). In essence, the pleading "must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face" and "the tenet that a court must accept as true all of the allegations contained in a complaint is inapplicable to legal conclusions." Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 679 (quotations and citation omitted).
Defendants raise numerous defenses in their Motions to Dismiss, including the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, the statute of limitations, standing, and various forms of immunity. Most of the arguments raised by Defendants need not be reached. For reasons explained below, Plaintiff's federal claims are time-barred and supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining, state law claims will not be exercised.
Before addressing the statute of limitations, this Court must address the issue of standing. "The threshold question in every federal case is whether the court has the judicial power to entertain the suit." Parsons v. U.S. Dep't of Just., 801 F.3d 701, 709 (6th Cir. 2015) (quoting Nat'l Rifle Ass'n of Am. v. Magaw, 132 F.3d 272, 279 (6th Cir. 1997)). "Article III of the United States Constitution prescribes that federal courts may exercise jurisdiction only where an actual 'case or controversy' exists." Id. at 709-10 (quoting U.S. Const. art. III, § 2). "Courts have explained the requirement through a series of 'justiciability doctrines,' including, 'perhaps the most important,' that a litigant must have 'standing' to invoke the jurisdiction of the federal courts." Id. at 710 (quoting Magaw, 132 F.3d at 279). The Supreme Court has enumerated three elements for Article III standing:
First, the plaintiff must have suffered an injury in fact—an invasion of a legally protected interest which is (a) concrete and particularized and (b) actual or imminent, not conjectural or hypothetical. Second, there must be a causal connection between the injury and the conduct complained of—the injury has to be fairly traceable to the challenged action of the defendant, and not the result of the independent action of some third party not before the court....
To continue reading
Request your trial