McLoughlin v. Rensselaer Cnty. Dep't of Soc. Servs., 1:18-CV-0487 (LEK/CFH)

• Decision Date: 14 August 2019
• Docket Number: 1:18-CV-0487 (LEK/CFH)
• Parties: WILLIAM MCLOUGHLIN, et al., Plaintiffs, v. RENSSELAER COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES, et al., Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Northern District of New York

WILLIAM MCLOUGHLIN, et al., Plaintiffs, v. RENSSELAER COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES, et al., Defendants.

1:18-CV-0487 (LEK/CFH)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

August 14, 2019

MEMORANDUM-DECISION AND ORDER

I. INTRODUCTION

The present action was brought by Plaintiffs William McLoughlin and Sovaira Mall on behalf of themselves and their infant son, DM, against the Rensselaer County Department of Social Services (RCDSS); two of its employees, Megan Golden and Jennifer Rosengart (the "Individual Defendants"); and an unidentified "John Doe" defendant, who allegedly removed DM from his parents' custody for three days, ordered a CT scan of DM against his parents' wishes, and filed an "indicated report" of child abuse against McLoughlin and Mall with the New York State Child Abuse Registry.

Plaintiffs filed suit pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Against each Defendant, they allege: (1) violation of Plaintiffs' due-process rights and DM's Fourth Amendment rights for performing the CT scan, (2) false imprisonment, (3) violation of the Plaintiffs' due-process rights and DM's Fourth Amendment rights for removing DM from his parents' custody, (4) violation of the Eighth Amendment, (5) abuse of process, (6) malicious prosecution, (7) violation of Plaintiffs' right to equal protection, and (8) violation of Plaintiffs' substantive due-process rights. Dkt. No. 1 ("Complaint") ¶¶ 58-90.

Defendants filed an answer and later moved for judgment on the pleadings pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(c), arguing that the Complaint failed to state a Monell claim against RCDSS, that the individual Defendants had qualified immunity against all eight claims, and that all of the claims except the third and fifth failed to state a claim for relief. Dkt. Nos. 9 ("Answer"), 17-1 ("Defendants' Memorandum") at 8.¹ For the following reasons, Plaintiffs' claims against RCDSS are dismissed. For the remaining Defendants, Plaintiffs' Eighth Amendment, malicious prosecution, equal protection, and substantive due-process claims are dismissed. For all other claims, the Defendants' motion is denied.

II. BACKGROUND

Defendants contest many of Plaintiffs' allegations in the Answer, but for the purposes of the present motion the Court will only consider the facts as alleged in the Complaint. Hayden v. Paterson, 594 F.3d 150, 160 (2d Cir. 2010). Plaintiffs have also expressly incorporated a May 23, 2016 Decision After Hearing by the Bureau of Special Hearings of the State of New York Office of Children and Family Services (the "Hearing Bureau") into the Complaint. Dkt. Nos. 20 ("Plaintiffs' Opposition") at 7; 20-1 ("Hearing Bureau Decision"). Defendants agree that the Hearing Bureau Decision is incorporated into the Complaint and can be considered on their Rule 12(c) motion. Dkt. No. 21 ("Defendants' Reply") at 5.

McLoughlin and Mall are DM's parents. Compl. ¶ 1-2. McLoughlin is "White Caucasian" and Mall is Pakistani, meaning DM is a "mixed-race child." Id. ¶ 3. At around 10:30 PM on April 21, 2015, McLoughlin was doing laundry and placed DM (then three months old) on a clothes dryer. Id. ¶ 8. DM "kicked and slid off the dryer" about six inches onto a nearby table, and then another two or two-and-a-half feet onto the floor. Id. ¶ 9. He suffered a bump on his head and scrapes on his nose, knuckles, and knees. Id. ¶ 10. McLoughlin brought DM into the shower, which usually soothed DM when he was upset. Id. Eventually the infant "calmed down and was not exhibiting any signs of stress." Id. ¶ 11. McLoughlin left DM with his father so he could pick up Mall from work. Id. According to McLoughlin's father, DM was "smiling and happy" and did not show "any signs of distress" during this time. Id. At 11:15 PM, Mall returned with McLoughlin and decided to call DM's pediatrician. Id. ¶ 12. The on-call service advised McLoughlin and Mall to take DM to the emergency room. Id. ¶ 13.

The Plaintiffs arrived at the hospital around 12:10 AM and had DM examined by Dr. Jason Adam Jacque. Id. ¶ 14. Because DM only had a small bump on his head and was not exhibiting any disconcerting symptoms, Dr. Jacque did not think it was worth administering a CT scan and instead recommended that DM be kept for observation. Id. ¶ 14-15. Dr. Jacque explained that the "exposure to the high levels of radiation associated with the CT scan could be harmful to plaintiff DM and could cause cancer." Id. ¶ 15. The on-call physician from DM's pediatrician's office, Dr. Kroopnick, conferred with Dr. Jacque and agreed that DM was "clinically well" and only had to be kept for observation. Id. ¶ 16. Initially, Dr. Kathryn A. Hogan, another attending physician at the hospital, recommended giving DM a CT scan to check for internal injuries, but she later agreed that DM should only be kept for observation unless hiscondition deteriorated. Id. ¶ 17. Dr. Hogan later testified that the decision to observe DM rather than give him a CT scan did not place DM in "an imminent risk of harm." Hr'g Bureau Decision at 12.

Defendant Golden is a child protective services caseworker employed by RCDSS, and is "White-Caucasian." Id. ¶¶ 5, 19. Defendant Rosengart is Golden's supervisor and is also an employee of RCDSS. Id. ¶ 6. While Plaintiffs were at the hospital, a call was placed to the New York State Central Abuse Register, and Golden was assigned to investigate the report. Id. ¶ 19. Golden insisted that DM receive a CT scan, but, based on Dr. Jacque's advice, McLoughlin and Mall refused unless DM's condition deteriorated. Id. ¶ 20. Golden later testified that she was not aware of the fact that DM's doctors had chosen to keep DM for observation rather than administer a CT scan. Hr'g Bureau Decision ¶ 24. Golden informed McLoughlin and Mall that if they did not consent to a CT scan, she would remove DM from their custody. Compl. ¶ 22. Eventually Mall agreed to give her consent. Id. Nonetheless, Golden, with Rosengart's approval, removed DM from his parents' custody because McLoughlin and Mall purportedly "refused to consent to a CT scan of [P]laintiff DM." Id. ¶¶ 23-25 (internal quotation marks omitted). The CT scan did not reveal any internal injuries. Id. ¶ 26.

Golden then placed DM in a foster home from April 21, 2015 until April 24, 2015, after which he was returned to his parents. Id. ¶¶ 29, 33. During the three days DM was separated from McLoughlin and Mall he was "wailing, crying and reaching out for his parents." Id. ¶ 49. Golden also filed an "indicated report" of child abuse against McLoughlin and Mall. Id. ¶ 34. An indicated report is a report with "some credible evidence of alleged abuse or maltreatment." Hr'g Bureau Decision at 8. The report was at least in part "based on [McLoughlin and Mall's] allegedfailure to follow through with the medical recommendation that [DM] receive a CT scan." Id. at 11. Plaintiffs allege that during the investigation Golden "exhibited certain negative behavioral gestures that were condescending towards plaintiff Mall," and that "Golden's unfavorable treatment of all of the plaintiffs was motivated by defendant Golden's racial animus and bias against Plaintiffs Mall and DM as Pakistani and Bi-racial respectively." Compl. ¶¶ 30-31.

At the time, McLoughlin was employed by the New York State Department of Victim Services, which had informed him that he could be terminated if they received an indicated report of child abuse. Compl. ¶¶ 35-36. The administrators of the little league baseball and basketball teams that he coached also informed McLoughlin that he would lose his coaching position if they received an indicated report. Id. McLoughlin and Mall requested a hearing challenging the indicated report. Id. ¶ 37. The Hearing Bureau found that the allegations of maltreatment were not supported by a fair preponderance of the evidence and amended the report from "indicated" to "unfounded." Hr'g Bureau Decision at 8, 13.

Plaintiffs filed the Complaint on April 19, 2018. Defendants answered on June 29, 2018, asserting eight defenses, three of which form the basis of their Rule 12© motion. Answer ¶¶ 98-105. Defendants filed the present motion on September 14, 2018, asserting that (1) all claims against RCDSS should be dismissed because the Complaint does not sufficiently allege a Monell claim; (2) all claims against the individual Defendants are barred by the doctrine of qualified immunity; and (3) six of the eight counts in the Complaint fail to state a valid constitutional claim. Defs.' Mem. at 8.

III. LEGAL STANDARD

The standard for a motion for judgment on the pleadings pursuant to Rule 12© is the same as the standard applied under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Bank of N.Y. v. First Millennium, Inc., 607 F.3d 905, 922 (2d Cir. 2010). Therefore the Court will take all factual allegations in the Complaint as true and draw all reasonable inferences in the non-movant's favor. Jaffer v. Hirji, 887 F.3d 111, 114 (2d Cir. 2018).

Plaintiffs cite Conley v. Gibson for the famously overturned proposition that a motion to dismiss must be denied "unless it appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim which would entitle him to relief." Pls.' Opp'n at 14 (quoting 355 U.S. 41, 45-46 (1957)). Several of the claims in the Complaint as well as the arguments in Plaintiffs' Opposition seem to have been drafted with this standard in mind. In Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, the Supreme Court "retire[d]" the Conley standard and replaced it with a requirement that the complaint meet the "plausibility standard." 550 U.S. 544, 563 (2007). Now, a plaintiff must plead "factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged." Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). While the Court must accept all factual allegations in the complaint as true, this does not extend to bare legal conclusions. Id.; see also Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555 ("[A] plaintiff's...