Mitchell v. Dakota Cnty. Soc. Servs.
| Decision Date | 19 May 2020 |
| Docket Number | No. 19-1419,19-1419 |
| Citation | 959 F.3d 887 |
| Parties | Dwight D. MITCHELL, individually and on behalf of his children X.M. and A.M.; Bryce Mitchell; Stop Child Protection Services From Legally Kidnapping, Plaintiffs - Appellants v. DAKOTA COUNTY SOCIAL SERVICES; Patrick Coyne, individually and in his official capacity as Executive Director of Dakota County Social Services; Joan Granger-Kopesky, individually and in her official capacity as Deputy Director of Dakota County Social Services; Leslie Yunker, individually and in her official capacity as Supervisor of Dakota County Social Services; Diane Stang, individually and in her official capacity as Supervisor of Dakota County Social Services; Susan Boreland, individually and in her official capacity as Social Worker of Dakota County Social Services; Chris P'Simer, individually and in his official capacity as Social Worker of Dakota County Social Services; Christina Akolly, individually and in her official capacity as Social Worker of Dakota County Social Services; Jacob Trotzky-Sirr, individually and in his official capacity as Guardian ad Litem of Dakota County; Tanya Derby, individually and in her official capacity as Public Defender of Dakota County; Kathryn Scott, individually and in her official capacity as Assistant County Attorney of Dakota County; Elizabeth Swank, individually and in her official capacity as Assistant County Attorney of Dakota County; Lucinda Jesson, individually; County of Dakota; Pamela Wheelock, in her official capacity as Acting Commissioner of Minnesota Department of Human Services, Defendants - Appellees |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit |
Erick G. Kaardal, William F. Mohrman, Mohrman & Kaardal, Minneapolis, MN, for Plaintiffs-Appellants.
Helen R. Brosnahan, Jeffrey A. Timmerman, William Michael Topka, Dakota County Attorney's Office, Hastings, MN, for Defendant-Appellee Dakota County Social Services.
Helen R. Brosnahan, Jeffrey A. Timmerman, Dakota County Attorney's Office, Hastings, MN, for Defendants-Appellees Patrick Coyne, Joan Granger-Kopesky, Leslie Yunker, Diane Stang, Susan Boreland, Chris P'Simer, Christina Akolly, Kathryn Scott, Elizabeth Swank, Lucinda Jesson, County of Dakota.
Kathryn Iverson Landrum, Assistant Attorney General, Attorney General's Office, Saint Paul, MN, Jeffrey A. Timmerman, Dakota County Attorney's Office, Hastings, MN, for Defendants-Appellees Jacob Trotzky-Sirr, Tanya Derby, Pamela Wheelock.
Before ERICKSON, GRASZ, and KOBES, Circuit Judges.
Dwight D. Mitchell ("Mitchell"), his three children, and Stop Child Protection Services from Legally Kidnapping (collectively "the plaintiffs") brought this action in response to a Child in Need of Protection or Services ("CHIPS") proceeding by Dakota County Social Services ("DCSS"). The plaintiffs sued Dakota County, DCSS, nine Dakota County officials, and three State of Minnesota officials (collectively "the defendants") asserting constitutional, federal, and state law claims. The district court1 granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and (b)(6). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and we affirm.
We describe the facts in a light most favorable to the plaintiffs, taking as true all allegations in the complaint. Mitchell, a New Jersey resident, lived in Minnesota temporarily for work with his three children, X.M., A.M., and B.M., his then-wife Tatiana Litvinenko, and Litvinenko's son. On February 16, 2014, a babysitter who was watching X.M. and A.M. called the police on behalf of X.M. reporting that Mitchell had used corporal punishment on X.M. After observing bruising, the police took X.M. and A.M. to the police station for questioning. The children told the police and DCSS workers, including appellee Susan Boreland, that Mitchell had spanked them on prior occasions. During this investigation, B.M. was attending school out of state.
Boreland contacted the children's biological mother and Mitchell's ex-wife, Eva Campos. Campos stated that Mitchell had previously abused the children and encouraged officials to pursue legal action in Minnesota. As part of the investigation, DCSS obtained New Jersey court and police records involving the Mitchells. These records indicated that Campos and Mitchell had a hostile relationship, which included an attempt by Campos to abduct the children.
Boreland initiated a CHIPS proceeding in Minnesota state court on February 18, 2014, resulting in the removal of the children from Mitchell's physical custody. In a private meeting room outside of the courtroom where an emergency hearing was held, Boreland told Mitchell, "I am going to do everything in my power to see that the children are never returned to your custody." After Mitchell told her that Campos and the children were lying about the abuse, Boreland responded:
Jacob Trotzky-Sirr, a guardian ad litem who is also named as a defendant, was appointed to represent the children at the CHIPS hearing held on February 26, 2014. In accordance with Minnesota law, X.M. was also appointed attorney Tanya Derby, who is a public defender in Dakota County and named as a defendant in this action. In March 2014, Chris P'Simer replaced Boreland as the case agent assigned to the Mitchells’ case.
In May 2014, Mitchell entered an Alford plea to a charge of malicious punishment of a child in violation of Minn. Stat. § 609.377. In July, Mitchell agreed to a court order prohibiting him from using corporal punishment in exchange for regaining physical custody of A.M. and B.M., from whom he had been separated for five months. Mitchell, A.M., and B.M. then returned to New Jersey. In December 2015, after twenty-two months, the state court dismissed the CHIPS petition and returned X.M. to Mitchell's physical custody.
The plaintiffs brought suit in federal court asserting twenty-five constitutional, federal, and state law claims. The district court granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss all claims for lack of subject matter jurisdiction or for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Plaintiffs appeal.
We review de novo the district court's grant of a motion to dismiss, accepting plaintiffs’ well-pleaded allegations as true. Ulrich v. Pope Cty., 715 F.3d 1054, 1058 (8th Cir. 2013). A plaintiff must "plead facts sufficient to raise a right to relief above the speculative level." Brown v. Medtronic, Inc., 628 F.3d 451, 459 (8th Cir. 2010) (quotation marks omitted). We accept as true a plaintiff's specific factual allegations, but we are not required to accept broad legal conclusions. Id. We may affirm based on any grounds supported by the record. Tony Alamo Christian Ministries v. Selig, 664 F.3d 1245, 1248 (8th Cir. 2012).
The plaintiffs challenged three Minnesota child welfare statutes as facially unconstitutional. See Minn. Stat. §§ 260C.007, subds. 5, 6, & 13 ; 260C.301, subd. 1 ; and 626.556, subd. 2. The district court determined that Mitchell and his children, as individuals, lacked standing to challenge the facial constitutionality of the statutes and dismissed the claims for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. We review dismissal on the basis of standing de novo . Frost v. Sioux City, 920 F.3d 1158, 1161 (8th Cir. 2019).
Mitchell and his children assert they have standing to challenge the statutes’ facial constitutionality because they might one day return to Minnesota. Stop Child Protection Services from Legally Kidnapping, an association of parents affected by Minnesota's child-protection services, asserts it has standing because its members live in Minnesota, have had experiences with Minnesota's child-protection system, and could again face state or county child abuse investigations. To establish standing, a plaintiff must show an injury in fact traceable to the defendant's conduct that will likely be redressed by a favorable decision. Frost, 920 F.3d at 1161 ; see also Town of Chester v. Laroe Estates, Inc., ––– U.S. ––––, 137 S. Ct. 1645, 1650, 198 L.Ed.2d 64 (2017). Plaintiffs seeking prospective relief based on past actions must show "a real and immediate threat that [they] would again suffer similar injury in the future." Mosby v. Ligon, 418 F.3d 927, 933 (8th Cir. 2005) (internal quotation marks omitted). Speculative future harm does not establish a real and immediate threat of injury and is insufficient to confer standing. Frost, 920 F.3d at 1161.
Mitchell's or his children's speculative return to Minnesota is insufficient to show a real and immediate threat of repeat injury. Without an injury in fact, Mitchell and his children lack standing. See Frost, 920 F.3d at 1161 ; see also City of L.A. v. Lyons, 461 U.S. 95, 101–02, 103 S.Ct. 1660, 75 L.Ed.2d 675 (1983). An association like Stop Child Protection Services from Legally Kidnapping has standing if one of its members independently establishes standing. See Warth v. Seldin, 422 U.S. 490, 511, 95 S.Ct. 2197, 45 L.Ed.2d 343 (1975). The speculative future action alleged in the plaintiffs’ complaint is not enough to confer standing on any individual member of the association. Neither the individual plaintiffs nor the association have standing to challenge the facial constitutionality of the Minnesota statutes.2
Mitchell seeks monetary damages under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, claiming procedural and substantive due process violations, Equal Protection violations, municipal liability, and conspiracy.3 We address these claims in turn.
Mitchell alleges the defendants violated his due process rights by failing to provide adequate procedural safeguards during the CHIPS proceeding. He also claims the defendants interfered with his substantive due...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Barber v. Frakes
...satisfy the element of arbitrary conduct shocking to the conscience, necessary for a due process violation." Mitchell v. Dakota Cty. Soc. Servs., 959 F.3d 887, 898 (8th Cir. 2020) (quoting Folkerts v. City of Waverly, 707 F.3d 975, 981 (8th Cir. 2013) (emphasis in original)). "Whether condu......
-
Lennette v. State
...in original) (quoting Mulholland v. Government County of Berks , 706 F.3d 227, 241 (3d Cir. 2013) )); Mitchell v. Dakota Cnty. Soc. Servs. , 959 F.3d 887, 901 (8th Cir. 2020) ("Because removal of the children was based on a reasonable suspicion of child abuse and did not shock the conscienc......
-
Pavek v. Simon, Case No. 19-cv-3000 (SRN/DTS)
...the plaintiff possesses except for the characteristic about which the plaintiff alleges discrimination.’ " Mitchell v. Dakota Cty. Soc. Services , 959 F.3d 887, 899 (8th Cir. 2020) (citation omitted) (emphasis added). Here, the Ballot Order statute—the sole target of Plaintiffs’ disparate t......
-
Danker v. City of Council Bluffs, Iowa
...standing and that its claim is not moot to assert a challenge to the constitutionality of a law); Mitchell v. Dakota Cty. Soc. Servs. , 959 F.3d 887, 896 (8th Cir. 2020) (explaining that lack of standing to make a facial challenge to the constitutionality of a statute requires dismissal for......