Sophapmysay v. City of Sergeant Bluff

Decision Date18 December 2000
Docket NumberNo. C00-4051-MWB.,C00-4051-MWB.
PartiesTommy N. SOPHAPMYSAY as Administrator of the Estate of Ammy Dovangsibountham, Plaintiff, v. CITY OF SERGEANT BLUFF, Iowa; Chief of Sergeant Bluff, Iowa Police Department David McFarland; Woodbury County; Woodbury County Attorney Tom Mullin; Assistant Woodbury County Attorney Paul Kittridge; Assistant Woodbury County Attorney Machelle Lauters; Iowa Public Defenders Office; William L. Wegman, Iowa Public Defender; Assistant Iowa Public Defender Greg Jones; Assistant Iowa Public Defender Michelle Driebilbus; Iowa Department of Human Services; Terri Devoss; Lori Limits and Lori Davenport, as Administrator of the Estate of Sounthaly Keosay, Defendants.
CourtU.S. District Court — Northern District of Iowa

Shelley A. Horak, Sioux city, IA, for plaintiff.

Gordon E. Allen, Deputy Atty. Gen., for defendants.

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER REGARDING STATE DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS

BENNETT, Chief Judge.

                TABLE OF CONTENTS
                I. INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND ....................................1183
                   A. Procedural Background .......................................1183
                   B. Factual Background ..........................................1184
                II. LEGAL ANALYSIS ................................................1185
                   A. Standards For Rule 12(b)(6) Motions To Dismiss ..............1185
                   B. Analysis Of Claims ..........................................1187
                      1. Eleventh Amendment .......................................1187
                         a. The constitutional bar ................................1187
                         b. Suit "against the "state" .............................1188
                         c. Eleventh Amendment immunity and exceptions to it ......1189
                            i. Congressional abrogation ...........................1189
                
                ii. State waiver ......................................1190
                            iii. The nature of the waiver .........................1190
                            iv. Failure to meet the "stringent" standard ..........1190
                            v. Express waiver .....................................1191
                         d. Waiver in this case ...................................1192
                      2. Substantive Due Process Claim ............................1193
                         a. DeShaney decision and its progeny .....................1193
                         b. The state-created danger exception ....................1194
                         c. Analysis ..............................................1195
                      3. Public defenders actions under color of state law ........1195
                III. CONCLUSION ...................................................1196
                
I. INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND
A. Procedural Background

Plaintiff Tommy N. Sophapmysay, in his capacity as the administrator of the estate of Ammy Dovangsibountham, filed this lawsuit on May 12, 2000, against various state and county officials and employees and Lori Davenport as the administrator of the estate of Sounthaly Keosay. At the center of this lawsuit is Ammy's murder by her stepfather Keosay on March 17, 1999. Keosay then killed himself. In Count I of his complaint, Sophapmysay alleges that all the named defendants violated 42 U.S.C. § 1983 by violating Ammy's rights to due process of law by failing to protect her from Keosay. Specifically, Sophapmysay alleges that defendants failed to fulfill their affirmative duty to protect Ammy from bodily harm even though defendants had knowledge that Keosay threatened Ammy's life if she testified against him. In addition, Sophapmysay alleges that defendants' established policy, practice, or custom of failing to protect juvenile child abuse witnesses permitted Keosay to murder Ammy. Sophapmysay also alleges that defendants had actual or constructive notice of their policy, practice, or custom of failing to protect juvenile child abuse witnesses. In Count II, Sophapmysay alleges a claim of negligence against defendants City of Sergeant Bluff, Woodbury County, Tom Mullin, in his official capacity as Woodbury County Attorney, William Wegman, in his official capacity as Iowa State Public Defender, and Jessie Rasmussen, in his official capacity as Director of the Iowa Department of Human Serves. Sophapmysay asserts that these defendants failed to properly supervise and control the conduct of defendants Dave McFarland, Paul Kitteridge, Machelle Lauters, Terri DeVoss, Lori Limits, and Michelle Driebilbus. In Count III, Sophapmysay alleges a claim for wrongful death against all named defendants. Sophapmysay contends that defendants created a special relationship with Ammy by requesting that she provide information against Keosay and then failed to protect her from Keosay. In Count IV, Sophapmysay alleges a claim for tortious infliction of emotional distress against all named defendants. In Count V, Sophapmysay alleges a negligence claim against defendants Iowa Public Defender, Greg Jones and Michelle Driebilbus in their individual capacity. Sophapmysay contends that these defendants had an attorney client relationship with Ammy which they breached by failing to follow up on Keosay's bail status, failing to appear and represent her as guardian ad litem in the criminal prosecution against Keosay, and failing to advise Ammy that she had a right to representation by a guardian ad litem in all hearings concerning the criminal charges against Keosay. In "Count V," Sophapmysay asserts a claim of respondeat superior against defendants City of Sergeant Bluff, Woodbury County, the Iowa Department of Human Resources and the Iowa Public Defenders Office.1 In Count VI, Sophapmysay asserts claim for wrongful death against defendant Keosay and asserts that he deliberately or negligently caused her death.2 Sophapmysay asserts that under Iowa law these defendants are liable for the torts committed by their employees when the employees are acting within the scope of their employment.

Defendants Iowa Public Defender's Office, William Wegman, Greg Jones, Michelle Driebilbus, Iowa Department of Human Services, Jessie Rasmussen, Terri DeVoss and Lori Limits have moved to dismiss various portions of the complaint for failure to state a claim, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Specifically, these defendants assert that Sophapmysay's due process claim must be dismissed because Sophapmysay has failed to plead a sufficient special relationship so as to state a constitutional claim. Defendants Iowa Public Defender's Office and the Iowa Department of Human Services argue that the claims against them are barred by the Eleventh Amendment. Defendants further assert that the claims contained in Count II against defendants William Wegman and Jessie Rasmussen must be dismissed because these defendants are being sued in their official capacity which is barred by the Eleventh Amendment. Defendants further contend that Counts III, IV, V, "V" and VI are barred by the Iowa Tort Claims Act. Defendants also contend that Sophapmysay's claims for respondeat superior against them fail to state claims for relief because, under Iowa law, claims of respondeat superior against state agencies are barred. Finally, defendants contend that any tort claims against them for punitive damages are barred by Iowa law. Plaintiff Sophapmysay filed a timely response to defendants' motion to dismiss.

Before turning to a legal analysis of the motion to dismiss, the court must first identify the standards for disposition of a motion to dismiss, as well as the factual background of this case as set forth in the complaint.

B. Factual Background

The factual background for disposition of these motions is based entirely on the facts as alleged in Sophapmysay's May 12, 2000, complaint. According to the complaint, defendant Greg Jones was the Assistant Public Defender in charge of the Sioux City, Iowa, office. He was employed by the State of Iowa. Michael Williams and Michelle Driebilbus were Assistant Public Defenders and employed by the State of Iowa.3 Defendant Jessie Rasmussen was the Director of the Iowa Department of Human Services and employed by the State of Iowa. Defendants Terri DeVoss and Lori Limits were employees of the Iowa Department of Human Services and employees of the State of Iowa.

Ammy lived with her mother, Anna Keosay, in Sergeant Bluff, Iowa. Ammy's stepfather Sounthaly Keosay ("Keosay") was also living with them. In 1996, Keosay began to sexually molest Ammy. Ammy complained to her mother about the abuse but Keosay continued to molest Ammy until January 20, 1999.

On January 22, 1999, Ammy ran away from home. Ammy left her mother a letter in which she explained that she was leaving home because of the sexual abuse. Keosay, however, found the letter and ripped it up before Ammy's mother could read it. Ammy's mother reported Ammy missing to the police on January 22, 1999.

On January 29, 1999, defendant David McFarland located Ammy. McFarland and Iowa Department of Human Services worker Terri DeVoss interviewed Ammy and inquired as to why she ran away. Ammy was hesitant to say why she had left home. McFarland and DeVoss promised Ammy that she would be protected. Ammy then told McFarland and DeVoss that she had been sexually abused by Keosay. Ammy was taken by McFarland and DeVoss to the Crittendon Center in Sioux City.

After taking Ammy to the Crittendon Center, McFarland and DeVoss went to Ammy's home and informed her mother. DeVoss found Anna Keosay's reaction minimized Ammy's abuse. DeVoss prepared the paperwork necessary to commence juvenile court proceedings to protect Ammy from Keosay. In her paperwork, DeVoss notes that Ammy had revealed that Keosay had been sexually abusing her for three years, her mother seemed to minimize the abuse, and that if she was returned to the home she would be in imminent danger. DeVoss's paperwork, however, failed to note that Keosay had threatened Ammy's life.

On February 16, 1999, Keosay was arrested and charged with sexually abusing Ammy. Keosay's bond was set at $50,000. On February 16, 1999, defendant McFarland prepared a ...

To continue reading

Request your trial
2 cases
  • Kenyon v. State, No. C 03-4038-MWB (N.D. Iowa 9/30/2003)
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Northern District of Iowa
    • September 30, 2003
    ...Eleventh Amendment immunity for suit in federal court on a claim pursuant to the Iowa Tort Claims Act, in Sophapmysay v. City of Sergeant Bluff, 126 F. Supp. 2d 1180 (N.D. Iowa 2000). In Sophapmysay, this court found that "[t]he plain language of section 669.4 limits waiver of Iowa sovereig......
  • Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Amer. H. Prod., No. C 00-3079-MWB (N.D. Iowa 4/4/2001)
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Northern District of Iowa
    • April 4, 2001
    ...of its disposition clear, the appellate court will "treat the case as being in that posture." Id. Sophapmysay v. City of Sergeant Bluff, 126 F. Supp.2d 1180, 1186 n. 4 (N.D.Iowa 2000). This court has also applied these standards for conversion in a number of decisions, with varying results ......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT