Van Nguyen v. Foley
| Decision Date | 27 October 2021 |
| Docket Number | 21-cv-991 (ECT/TNL) |
| Parties | James Van Nguyen, Plaintiff, v. Patricia Foley, Jody Alholinna, Nancy Martin, Charli R. Vig, Keith B. Anderson, Rebecca Crooks-Stratton, and Cole W. Miller, in their individual and official capacities, Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Minnesota |
Jason Scott Juran and Robert R. Hopper, Robert R. Hopper & Associates, LLC, Minneapolis, MN, for Plaintiff James Van Nguyen.
Richard A. Duncan, Joshua Todd Peterson, and Sarah Vandelist Faegre Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP, Minneapolis, MN, for Defendants Patricia Foley, Nancy Martin, Charli R. Vig, Keith B. Anderson, Rebecca Crooks-Stratton, and Cole W. Miller.
Paul C. Peterson and Matthew D. Sloneker, Lind Jensen Sullivan & Peterson, PA, Minneapolis, MN, for Defendant Jody Alholinna.
Eric C. Tostrud, United States District Court.
Plaintiff James Van Nguyen brought this case against employees and elected leaders of the Shakopee Mdewakanton Sioux Community and an independent guardian ad litem to challenge actions taken during Tribal Court child welfare proceedings concerning Nguyen's daughter, A.J.N., and no-trespass orders issued by the Community's Business Council. Nguyen asserts federal claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the Indian Civil Rights Act (“ICRA”), 25 U.S.C § 1301 et seq., and the Stored Communications Act (“SCA”), 18 U.S.C. § 2701 et seq., along with state-law claims for abuse of process and intentional infliction of emotional distress. Nguyen seeks damages, declaratory relief, a writ of habeas corpus, and attorneys' fees and costs. Defendants Patricia Foley, Nancy Martin, Charles R. Vig, Keith B. Anderson, Rebecca Crooks-Stratton, and Cole W. Miller (who the Parties label the “Community Defendants” owing to their status as Community employees or elected leaders) have moved to dismiss Nguyen's claims under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6). Defendant Jody Alholinna, A.J.N.'s guardian ad litem, has moved separately to dismiss Nguyen's claims under Rule 12(b)(6). Defendants' motions will be granted.
I[1]
Nguyen and Amanda Gustafson are the parents of minor A.J.N. Am. Compl. [ECF No. 4] ¶¶ 1-2. Gustafson and A.J.N. are members of the Community, a federally recognized Indian tribe. Id. ¶¶ 2-3. Nguyen is not. Id. ¶¶ 1, 15.
Nguyen and Gustafson became involved with the Community's court system in April 2014 when Gustafson was pregnant with A.J.N. Nguyen and Gustafson had a domestic altercation after Nguyen reported Gustafson to Scott County, Minnesota law enforcement authorities for using heroin while she was pregnant. Id. ¶ 20. As a result of that incident, Gustafson was criminally charged and convicted of domestic assault and interference with a 911 call in Scott County, and the Community placed Gustafson under its conservatorship “due to her drug problems and mental illness.” Id. Gustafson entered a drug rehabilitation program, and Nguyen and Gustafson then married. Id. ¶¶ 20-21. In September 2014, A.J.N. was born, and the Community's conservatorship ended. Id. ¶¶ 25-26. In October 2014, after Gustafson was charged for another domestic altercation, Nguyen obtained an order for protection from the Scott County District Court against Gustafson for A.J.N. and himself. Id. ¶¶ 27-28; see id., Exs. C-F [ECF Nos. 1-4, 1-5, 7-1, 7-2].[2] Soon after, Gustafson filed a petition for dissolution of the marriage in the Tribal Court, and Nguyen filed a petition for the same in Scott County.[3] Id. ¶¶ 30-31. These petitions were later abandoned after Nguyen and Gustafson reconciled for a time. See Am. Compl. ¶¶ 97, 105, Ex. J [ECF No. 1-11] at 17-18. Regardless, these events set the stage for Nguyen's claims arising from proceedings in the Tribal Court, as well as those arising from the actions of the Community Business Council.
In November 2014, allegedly in retaliation for Nguyen obtaining an order of protection, Gustafson filed a complaint against Nguyen with Community Child Protection Services. Am. Compl. ¶ 43. The Community Family and Children Services Department opened a child welfare case for A.J.N. but did not notify Scott County. Id. ¶ 44. On November 26, 2014, Patricia Foley, a Community child welfare officer, filed an emergency ex parte petition in the Tribal Court, seeking a determination that A.J.N. was a child in need of assistance and demanding transfer of temporary and legal custody of A.J.N. to the Department. Id. ¶¶ 47-48. On December 4, the Tribal Court granted the petition in part. Id., Ex. G [ECF No. 1-8] at 25-29. The Tribal Court declined to address custody, instead deferring to an order on that issue from the Scott County District Court in the pending dissolution proceedings, but determined that A.J.N. was a child in need of assistance and appointed Jody Alholinna as guardian ad litem for A.J.N. Id.
Foley began a child welfare investigation. Id. ¶¶ 48-49. Nguyen alleges that Foley “far exceeded her neutral status by communicating ex parte directly and regularly with [Gustafson]” and “repeatedly showed bias and prejudice” against Nguyen, and “assum[ed] a role as an advocate” for Gustafson. Id. ¶¶ 50-51, 54; see Id. ¶¶ 55, 63-73, Ex. A [ECF No. 1-2]. During the investigation, Gustafson “illegally obtained private, confidential and privileged email communications” between Nguyen and his attorney and shared those emails with Foley and Alholinna. Am. Compl. ¶¶ 52-53, 56, 58, 60-62, 170-71. Foley prepared a report of her investigation for the Tribal Court. Id., Ex. O [ECF No. 4-2]. Nguyen alleges that Foley “omitted relevant and material evidence” from this report, particularly with respect to Gustafson's criminal history, and “relied on false information provided by [Gustafson] to improve [Gustafson's] position in the proceedings, at the expense of [Nguyen] and A.J.N.” Am. Compl. ¶¶ 74-79. Nguyen makes similar allegations with respect to a report filed by Alholinna. See Id. ¶¶ 78, 80-82. Nguyen also alleges that Foley, Alholinna, and Nancy Martin, the director of the Community Family and Children Services Department, “failed to confirm or verify information provided to them” by Gustafson. Id. ¶¶ 78.
On January 23, 2015, the Tribal Court held a child welfare hearing. Id. ¶ 83, Ex. H [ECF No. 1-9]. Foley, Alholinna, and Martin were present, and Foley and Alholinna presented their recommendations. Id. The Tribal Court adopted Foley and Alholinna's recommendations and ordered that legal custody of A.J.N. remain with the Department. Id. The child welfare case remained open until a final hearing on July 15, 2015. See Am. Compl. ¶¶ 86-88, Exs. I-K [ECF Nos. 1-10-1-12] (transcripts of March 9, April 17, and July 15 hearings). The Tribal Court formally closed A.J.N.'s file at that hearing and subsequently issued a written order restoring temporary legal custody of A.J.N. to Nguyen and Gustafson. Am. Compl. ¶¶ 88-89, Ex. K. However, the Tribal Court also ordered that A.J.N. remain a ward of the Court, allowing it to retain jurisdiction over the matter. Am. Compl. ¶ 89. Nguyen alleges that the Tribal Court “curtailed and denied [his] protected parental rights without a sufficient evidentiary basis.” Id. ¶ 90.
Between late 2015 and early 2017, Nguyen and Gustafson faced a No. of challenges. Gustafson served multiple periods of incarceration and struggled with substance abuse, the Tribal Court reopened and later closed Gustafson's conservatorship, and Nguyen and Gustafson continued to dispute A.J.N.'s custody. Id. ¶¶ 91-105. In June 2017, Nguyen filed a petition for divorce in California, where he maintained a second residence, and was granted temporary full custody of A.J.N. Id. ¶ 106. Nguyen then contacted Community officials seeking to reopen Gustafson's conservatorship. Id. ¶ 108.
On July 20, 2017, Gustafson filed a petition for dissolution in the Tribal Court. Id. The Tribal Court asserted its jurisdiction over A.J.N. and ordered that she be returned to Minnesota. Id. ¶ 109. The case Nguyen filed in California was dismissed in favor of Tribal Court jurisdiction. Id. ¶ 110. Nguyen filed a petition for dissolution in Hennepin County District Court, but that petition was stayed pending Tribal Court proceedings and later closed. Id. ¶ 111.
Nguyen then sought to dismiss the dissolution case in Tribal Court for lack of personal and subject-matter jurisdiction. Id. ¶ 112. The Tribal Court denied the motion. Id. ¶ 113. Nguyen appealed, arguing that the order was immediately reviewable or, alternatively, that it should be certified for interlocutory review. Id. ¶ 114. The Tribal Court and Tribal Court of Appeals rejected Nguyen's arguments. Id. ¶¶ 115-16. In early 2018, Nguyen filed an action in federal district court, seeking an injunction to prohibit the Tribal Court from exercising jurisdiction over Gustafson's divorce petition. Id. ¶ 117; see Nguyen v. Gustafson, No. 18-cv-522 (SRN/KMM) (D. Minn.). Judge Nelson dismissed the case, finding that Nguyen had not exhausted his remedies in the Tribal Court. Id.
The Tribal Court issued a final judgment in the divorce action on May 3, 2019. Duncan Decl. Ex. D [ECF No. 25-1] at 77-114.[4] The Court awarded joint legal custody of A.J.N. to Nguyen and Gustafson and ordered a co-parenting plan as part of that judgment. Id. In October 2019, Gustafson filed a motion to modify custody seeking sole legal and physical custody of A.J.N. based on Nguyen's noncompliance with the Tribal Court's prior order. See id., Ex. E [ECF No. 25-1] at 133-46. The Tribal Court awarded sole custody to Gustafson and visitation to Nguyen. Id. The Tribal Court issued additional orders on April 3 and April 15, 2020, resolving outstanding issues primarily concerning parenting-time arrangements. See Juran Decl. Ex. A [ECF No. 35]. Nguyen appealed some...
To continue reading
Request your trial