Nielson v. Legacy Health Systems

• Decision Date: 12 June 2001
• Docket Number: No. 00-1197-HO.,00-1197-HO.
• Citation: Nielson v. Legacy Health Systems, 230 F.Supp.2d 1206 (D. Or. 2001)
• Parties: Bruce R. NIELSON, Plaintiff, v. LEGACY HEALTH SYSTEMS, et. al., Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of Oregon

230 F.Supp.2d 1206

Bruce R. NIELSON, Plaintiff, v.LEGACY HEALTH SYSTEMS, et. al., Defendants.

No. 00-1197-HO.

United States District Court, D. Oregon.

June 12, 2001.

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

Bruce R. Nielson, Vancouver, WA, pro se.

Sheri C. Browning, Keating Jones Bildstein Hughes, Portland, OR, for Defendant.

OPINION AND ORDER

HAGGERTY, District Judge.

I.Introduction

This case arises out of a state-court custody decision by the Circuit Court of Washington County, Oregon, denying plaintiff custody of his daughter and ordering him to pay child support to his former wife.Plaintiff filed three lawsuits against a number of defendants who played varying roles in plaintiff's child-custody matters.The defendants have filed motions to dismiss plaintiff's complaints or alternatively, requiring him to make his allegations more definite and certain.Upon initial review of plaintiff's complaints, the court found they were deficient.Those cases have now been consolidated into one proceeding.Because he was proceeding without the assistance of counsel, the court held the motions to dismiss in abeyance and granted plaintiff leave to file a single second-amended complaint curing the defects noted in his earlier pleadings.Plaintiff has now filed his second-amended complaint.For the following reasons, plaintiff's second-amended complaint is dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6).

II.Inadequacy of Plaintiff's Claims

Plaintiff alleges claims under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983and1985(2) for violations of his federal constitutional rights, federal RICO claims, state-law claims for negligence, intentional infliction of emotional distress, assault, and claims under Oregon anti-intimidation statutes.On a motion to dismiss, the court must accept plaintiff's factual allegations as true, and all reasonable inferences must be drawn in favor of plaintiff.Pelletier v. Federal Home Loan Bank of San Francisco,968 F.2d 865, 872(9th Cir.1992).In addition, because he is proceeding without the assistance of counselplaintiff's allegations must be liberally construed.Eldridge v. Block,832 F.2d 1132, 1136(9th Cir.1987).However, dismissal is proper where plaintiff's claims as pleaded do not support a claim for relief.Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dept.,901 F.2d 696, 699(9th Cir.1988).Each of plaintiff's claims is discussed in turn below.

III.Federal Claims

A. 42 U.S.C. § 1983

1.Private Defendants

42 U.S.C. § 1983 is a federal statute allowing persons whose federal constitutional rights have been violated by government officials to sue in federal court.In order to state a claim under § 1983, plaintiff must demonstrate that the defendants acted under color of state law and deprived him of rights secured by the Constitution or federal statutes.42. U.S.C.A. § 1983(West 2000).Section 1983 does not allow such a claim to be brought against private parties who were not acting under color of state law.West v. Atkins,487 U.S. 42, 108 S.Ct. 2250, 101 L.Ed.2d 40(1988).A private party may be sued under § 1983 only if sufficient facts are alleged to show that the conduct of the private party is "fairly attributable to the State" and that there was an agreement between the state and the private party to deprive plaintiff his constitutional rights.Lugar v. Edmondson Oil Co.,457 U.S. 922, 936-37, 102 S.Ct. 2744, 73 L.Ed.2d 482(1982);United Steelworkers of Am. v. Phelps Dodge Corp.,865 F.2d 1539, 1540-41(9th Cir.1989)(citations omitted).Plaintiff must allege sufficient facts to show that the private person wilfully participated in a joint action with state officials to deprive the plaintiff of his constitutional rights.Taylor v. List,880 F.2d 1040, 1048(9th Cir.1989).

Plaintiff has sued his former wife's private attorney, private medical facilities, and a number of employees of those private medical facilities under § 1983.Liberally construed, plaintiff alleges that these defendants"conspired" with government officials to violate his civil rights so that they qualify as state actors.The Ninth Circuit has consistently dismissed private hospitals, doctors, and attorneys in § 1983 claims for failing to come within the color of state law.SeeBriley v. State of Cal.,564 F.2d 849, 855-56(9th Cir.1977)(private hospitals not acting under color of state law unless the state is significantly involved in the private party's activities);Watkins v. Mercy Med. Center,520 F.2d 894, 896(9th Cir.1975)(private doctors normally do not come within the color of state law);Polk County v. Dodson,454 U.S. 312, 319 n. 9, 325, 102 S.Ct. 445, 70 L.Ed.2d 509(1981)(private attorneys do not act under color of state law).Plaintiff fails to provide specific facts showing how any of these defendants colluded with a state official to deprive plaintiff of his constitutional rights.Therefore, plaintiff's claims against Dr. Linda Lorenz("Lorenz"), Grazia Shack("Shack"), Adelaide Turner("Turner"), Keri Manderfeld("Manderfeld"), Guy Edmonds("Edmonds"), Leah Baer("Baer"), Dr. Sandra Shulmire("Shulmire"), and Kirsten Lurtz("Lurtz") are dismissed.

2.State Defendants

Plaintiff also alleges that several employees of Legacy Health Systems ("Legacy"), Kaiser Permanente, State of Oregon Services to Children and Families ("SOSCF"), Trillium Family Service ("Trillium"), and Tualatin Valley Center ("Tualatin Valley") violated his constitutional rights.Plaintiff alleges that these defendants deprived him of due process under the Fourteenth Amendment because he was not able to see his daughter during an investigation of possible child abuse by plaintiff.First, plaintiff alleges that he was deprived of due process because the state court placed restrictions on his custodial rights.This federal court has no authority to overturn or otherwise review the state-court child custody decision.SeeWorldwide Church of God v. McNair,805 F.2d 888, 890(9th Cir.1986)."This doctrine applies even when the challenge to the state court decision involves federal constitutional issues."Id.Simply put, child-support and child-custody issues are matters to be decided solely by the state courts.This federal court has no authority to review decisions made by the state courts, even if those claims are raised in a complaint for damages.Id.Plaintiff's custody dispute was settled in state court, and plaintiff received all the due process to which he was entitled.

Second, plaintiff alleges that his due process rights were violated because the integrity of the relationship between he and his daughter was damaged by the child welfare employees at SOSCF during the investigation, and that those employees provided false information to the court.However, "[t]he right to family integrity clearly does not include a constitutional right to be free from child abuse investigations," even if the investigation fails to discover evidence of abuse.SeeDevereaux v. Perez,218 F.3d 1045, 1053(9th Cir.2000)(quotingWatterson v. Page,987 F.2d 1, 8(1st Cir.1993)), see alsoDoe v. State of La.,2 F.3d 1412, 1417-18(5th Cir.1993)(childprotective-services employee who allegedly made false representations did not violate plaintiff's constitutional right of family integrity).

Additionally, plaintiff's claims against the SOSCF employees fail because child-welfare employees have qualified immunity from claims under § 1983 if their discretionary conduct "does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known."Caldwell v. LeFaver,928 F.2d 331, 333(9th Cir.1991)(quotingHarlow v. Fitzgerald,457 U.S. 800, 808, 102 S.Ct. 2727, 73 L.Ed.2d 396(1982)).An investigation into reports of child abuse is discretionary and does not amount to deprivation of constitutional rights unless the investigation clearly exceeds established legal norms.SeeWallis v. Spencer,202 F.3d 1126, 1144-45(9th Cir.2000);Devereaux,218 F.3d at 1053.Even a grossly negligent investigation by a child-protective services-employee does not amount to deprivation of a clearly established right.Devereaux,218 F.3d at 1054(quotingStem v. Ahearn,908 F.2d 1(5th Cir.1990)).Plaintiff has failed to allege a claim upon which relief can be granted against defendants Legacy, Kaiser Permanente, SOSCF, Trillium, and Tualatin Valley.

B. 42 U.S.C. § 1985

Section 1985(2) allows an action for damages against those who conspire to deny a person access to federal and state courts by "force, intimidation, or threat."In this case, plaintiff appears to allege that the defendants denied him access to the state court in which his custody issues were decided.In order to have a valid claim for denial of access to a state court, the plaintiff must allege that he is a member of a protected class.He must also allege specific allegations showing how each defendant denied him access to the state court because he is a member of a protected class.Portman v. County of Santa Clara,995 F.2d 898, 908(9th Cir.1993);Bach v. Mason,190 F.R.D. 567, 573(D.Idaho1999).

In addition, § 1985(3) prohibits conspiracies to deprive a person of equal protection of the laws.In order to state a claim, plaintiff must establish that a conspiracy existed to deprive him of equal protection of the law and that the conspiracy was based on discriminatory hostility toward the protected class.However plaintiff's allegations of a conspiracy are vague."A mere allegation of a conspiracy without factual specificity is insufficient."Karim-Panahi v. Los Angeles Police Dept.,839 F.2d 621(9th Cir.1988).In his amended complaint, plaintiff fails to provide specific factual allegations with respect to each defendant's acts which has led plaintiff to believe that the defendant was a part of the alleged conspiracy.

Plaintiff also fails to allege he is a member of a protected class.The amended complaint appears to allege some form...