Martin v. Dep't of Children & Family Servs.
| Decision Date | 13 November 2020 |
| Docket Number | CIVIL ACTION NO. 19-11876-WBV-MBN SECTION: "D" (5) |
| Parties | JULIE MARTIN, ET AL. v. DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES, ET AL. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Louisiana |
Before the Court is a Motion to Dismiss, filed by defendants, The State of Louisiana through its Department of Children and Family Services, Delaunda Dykes Bordelon, Jessica Gilbert and Danielle Trosclair (collectively, "Defendants").1 The Motion is opposed,2 and Defendants have filed a Reply.3 After considering the briefs submitted by the parties and the applicable law, for the reasons expressed below, the Court GRANTS the Motion to Dismiss, and remands Plaintiffs' state law claims to the Twenty-Second Judicial District Court for the Parish of St Tammany, Louisiana.
The following is a summary of the facts alleged in the state court Petition for Damages, which for purposes of a Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) motion, are taken as true.4 Jason Mitchell and his wife Julie Martin (collectively, "Plaintiffs"), allege that Mr. Mitchell was granted primary custody of his two minor children, A.M. and C.M., by an Order of Modification issued by a Texas state court inNovember 2016, which resulted in the children residing primarily with Plaintiffs.5 Plaintiffs assert that the children's mother, Samantha Mitchell, was emotionally and financially unable to properly care for the children, and consented to the court order giving Mr. Mitchell primary custody of the children.6 Plaintiffs allege that A.M. and C.M. were taken into the custody of the State of Louisiana through the Department of Children and Family Services ("DCFS") on or about September 25, 2018, after A.M. disclosed to a teacher that she had been sexually abused by Mr. Mitchell.7 Plaintiffs claim that the teacher's aide notified either (or both) the St. Tammany Parish Sheriff's Office and DCFS of the alleged abuse, which offices dispatched personnel to the school.8
Plaintiffs allege that DCFS employee, Delaunda Dykes Bordelon, and Detective Jenkins of the St. Tammany Parish Sheriff's Office interrogated A.M., concluded that she had potentially been sexually molested, and then "embarked on attempting to validate the conclusions which they had reached."9 According to Plaintiffs, Mr. Mitchell was notified of the allegation and "vehemently denied it."10 Plaintiffs assert that A.M. alleged that her father molested her when her stepmother (Ms. Martin) was out of town between May 31, 2016 and June 3, 2016.11 Plaintiffs claim that A.M.'s accounts of the alleged abuse were "inconsistent and contradictorythroughout the investigation."12 Plaintiffs allege that A.M. made the allegations because she was upset with discipline imposed by Mr. Mitchell and wanted to return to her mother's care.13
Plaintiffs further allege that on or about October 1, 2018, Mr. Mitchell sent Bordelon screenshots of a "text exchange between A.M. and a friend of A.M.'s," which show the following:
Plaintiffs claim that Bordelon conferred with Jessica Gilbert, another DCFS employee, about the text messages, but that the text messages were ultimately ignored by DCFS.15 Plaintiffs allege that on October 10, 2018, ten days after being provided the screenshot of the texts, DCFS held a meeting and determined that the sexual abuse allegations were valid based upon A.M.'s disclosures, which "resulted in the permanent removal of the children from the Father [sic] and Stepmother's [sic] loving home and placed them back into their Mother's [sic] custody in Texas."16 Plaintiffs claim that Mr. Mitchell vigorously fought DCFS' findings, and appealed the decision. Plaintiffs allege that on March 12, 2019, Judge Cazeline G. Hebert reversed DCFS' determination of a valid finding of sexual abuse "because of the credibletestimony of the Mitchells, the inconsistent statements of A.M. and C.M., and based upon timeline [sic] of events all which point to the fact that the alleged abuse could not have happened."17 Although not mentioned in the Petition, Judge Hebert's Order makes no mention of the custody of the minor children.18
On or about June 25, 2019, Plaintiffs filed a Petition for Damages in the Twenty-Second Judicial District Court in St. Tammany Parish, Louisiana against DCFS and three DCFS employees, Bordelon, Gilbert, and Danielle Trosclair, in their individual and official capacities.19 Plaintiffs allege that the failure of Bordelon, Gilbert and Trosclair "to consider exculpatory materials which were available, to review and understand the same, or having understood it, failing to react thereto and therefore to return A.M. and C.M. to the Mitchell [sic] was arbitrary and capricious and constitutes intentional, malicious, willful, outrageous, reckless, flagrant misconduct, and interference with the Father's [sic] fundamental rights as a parent."20 Plaintiffs assert that Bordelon, Gilbert and Trosclair were inadequately trained and supervised, which "deprived the [sic] Mr. Mitchell of the most fundamental of human rights, notably the right and ability to rear and nurture his children and to enjoy their companionship and presence in his home."21 Plaintiffs also allege that DCFS is responsible for the actions of Gilbert, Trosclair and Bordelonunder the doctrine of respondeat superior.22 Plaintiffs assert that the foregoing actions of Defendants "constitute a deprivation of the Petitioners' Civil Rights under color of state law, and as such are actionable under 42 U.S.C. § 1983."23 Defendants seek damages, including punitive damages, and attorney's fees for, among other things, emotional distress, pain and suffering, loss of reputation, loss of privacy interest and embarrassment.24
Bordelon, Gilbert, and the Louisiana Attorney General removed the matter to this Court on July 25, 2019, asserting subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331.25 The removing defendants asserted that Plaintiffs' Petition alleges a violation of federal law, namely 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiffs filed a Motion to Remand on August 23, 2019, asserting that the case should be remanded because the Notice of Removal was procedurally defective for lack of unanimity under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1441(c)(1) and (c)(2), and because DCFS did not join in the removal and did not clearly and expressly waive its Eleventh Amendment immunity.26 Finding no procedural defects in the removal and agreeing with the removing defendants that the State of Louisiana had waived its Eleventh Amendment immunity from suit in this case, the Court denied the Motion to Remand on March 18, 2020.27
Defendants filed the instant Motion to Dismiss on October 1, 2019, asserting that this case should be dismissed under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 because Plaintiffs have failed to allege a violation of a recognized constitutional right.28 Defendants also assert that the case should be dismissed because the State of Louisiana and its employees sued in their official capacities are not "persons" subject to liability under § 1983, and because the Petition fails to allege sufficient facts to overcome Defendants' qualified immunity from suit.29 Defendants claim that it is clear from Plaintiffs' allegations that they believe their constitutional rights were violated because DCFS investigators did not give the alleged exculpatory evidence (the text messages) the interpretation, weight or belief that the accused wanted.30 Defendants argue that there is no constitutional requirement that state investigators interpret, weigh, believe, or investigate allegedly exculpatory evidence provided by the accused in the same manner or as the accused desires.31 Defendants also assert that there is no constitutional requirement that State investigators perform any tests to validate allegedly exculpatory evidence.32 Defendants argue Plaintiffs have failed to state a claim under § 1983 because Plaintiffs failed to allege a violation of a constitutional right, much less that the constitutional right was clearly established at the time of the alleged violation.33Defendants also claim that Plaintiffs received "all the due process that they were entitled too [sic] at the father's administrative appeal hearing."34
Defendants further assert that Plaintiffs' claims against DCFS and its employees in their official capacities must be dismissed because the Supreme Court has held that litigants may not file § 1983 claims against a state or state officials in their official capacities.35 With respect to the § 1983 claims against Bordelon, Gilbert and Trosclair in their individual capacities, Defendants argue that they are entitled to qualified immunity and that Plaintiffs have failed to overcome qualified immunity by establishing a violation of a clearly established constitutional right.36 Defendants claim that heightened pleading is needed in qualified immunity cases,37 and that Plaintiffs have failed to allege specific facts to establish the required causal link between Defendants' actions and the deprivation of a constitutionally protected interest.38 Defendants argue that Plaintiffs' allegations regarding Defendants' failure to consider the alleged exculpatory evidence and Defendants' failure to follow DCFS policies are insufficient to allege a constitutional violation.39 Defendants further argue that Plaintiffs cannot show the violation of a clearly established constitutional right because "the amorphous due process right to family integrity isso nebulous its contours have yet to be well-defined."40 Defendants assert that the Fifth Circuit has consistently held that child abuse caseworkers who allegedly violated the right to family integrity for failure to conduct a "correct" investigation are entitled to qualified immunity.41 De...
To continue reading
Request your trial