Walker v. City of N.Y.

• Citation: 63 F.Supp.3d 301
• Decision Date: 05 December 2014
• Docket Number: No. 12–CV–2535 WFKMDG.,12–CV–2535 WFKMDG.
• Parties: Junior WALKER and Tahera Bullen–Walker, on behalf of themselves and on behalf of their infant children T.W. and N.W., Plaintiffs, v. The CITY OF NEW YORK, Stacey Robinson, Caseworker, New York City Administration of Children's Services, in her individual and official capacities, Gladys White, Supervisor, New York City Administration of Children's Services, in her individual and official capacities, Jacqueline McKnight, Assistant Commissioner–Brooklyn, New York City Administration of Children's Services, in her individual and official capacities, Sharon Rogers, Deputy Director for Brooklyn Field Office, Zone E, New York City Administration of Children's Services, in her individual and official capacities, Burton Lewis, Supervisor, New York City Administration of Children's Services, in his individual and official capacities, Karen Sawyer–Barro, Supervisor, New York City Administration of Children's Services, in her individual and official capacities, Natarsky Louissaint, Caseworker, New York City Administration of Children's Services, in her individual and official capacities, and John Mattingly, former Commissioner of the New York City Administration of Children's Services, in his individual and official capacities, Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Eastern District of New York

63 F.Supp.3d 301

Junior WALKER and Tahera Bullen–Walker, on behalf of themselves and on behalf of their infant children T.W. and N.W., Plaintiffs

v.The CITY OF NEW YORK, Stacey Robinson, Caseworker, New York City Administration of Children's Services, in her individual and official capacities, Gladys White, Supervisor, New York City Administration of Children's Services, in her individual and official capacities, Jacqueline McKnight, Assistant Commissioner–Brooklyn, New York City Administration of Children's Services, in her individual and official capacities, Sharon Rogers, Deputy Director for Brooklyn Field Office, Zone E, New York City Administration of Children's Services, in her individual and official capacities, Burton Lewis, Supervisor, New York City Administration of Children's Services, in his individual and official capacities, Karen Sawyer–Barro, Supervisor, New York City Administration of Children's Services, in her individual and official capacities, Natarsky Louissaint, Caseworker, New York City Administration of Children's Services, in her individual and official capacities, and John Mattingly, former Commissioner of the New York City Administration of Children's Services, in his individual and official capacities, Defendants.

No. 12–CV–2535 WFKMDG.

United States District Court, E.D. New York.

Signed Dec. 5, 2014.

Georgia Eulalee McCarthy, Georgia E. McCarthy, Attorney at Law, Kathy A. Polias, Brooklyn, NY, for Plaintiffs.

Charles Edward Carey Jr., Janice Casey Silverberg, Lauren A. Lively, Thomas B. Roberts, The City of New York Law Department, New York, NY, for Defendants.

DECISION & ORDER

WILLIAM F. KUNTZ, II, District Judge:

Two parents bring this suit against numerous employees of the Administration of Children's Services (“ACS”), the former ACS Commissioner, and the City of New York. Based on the events surrounding the removal of their two infant children in 2009, the parents, Plaintiffs Junior Walker and Thaera Bullen–Walker,¹ allege thirty-seven causes of action against the city and the eight individual defendants, all of whom are sued in both their individual and official capacities. Plaintiffs allege that Defendants violated their substantive and procedural due process rights, retaliated against Plaintiff Walker for exercising his First Amendment rights, unlawfully seized the infant children in violation of the Fourth Amendment, and engaged in malicious prosecution and abuse of process during the Family Court proceedings. However, Plaintiffs have failed to establish sufficient personal involvement for the majority of the individual Defendants. Furthermore, Plaintiffs have failed to establish a Monell claim against the City of New York or Commissioner Mattingly. The remaining Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity because caseworkers of reasonable competence could disagree as to whether the Family Court proceedings, under these circumstances, should have been pursued. For these reasons and others explained below, Defendants' motion for summary judgment is granted in its entirety.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

I. Parties

Plaintiffs Walker and Bullen–Walker bring this civil rights action on behalf of themselves and their infant children, T.W. and N.W. At the time of the relevant events, T.W. was eight years old and N.W. was one year old. Dkt. 93 (Third Am. Compl. (“Compl.”)) ¶ 13. At that time, T.W. and N.W. lived in the custody of their father, Walker, and their maternal aunt, a non-party to this action.² Id. Bullen–Walker was stationed overseas with the United States military. Id.

The Defendants include: Stacey Robinson, a Child Protective Specialist (“CPS”) at ACS; Gladys White, Robinson's CPS supervisor; Karen Sawyer–Barro, an ACS Child Protective Manager; Sharon Rogers, Deputy Director of Operations for an ACS Brooklyn Field Office; Jacqueline McKnight, Assistant Commissioner of ACS in Brooklyn in 2010; Natarsky Louissaint, an ACS caseworker; Burton Lewis, a supervisor at the Emergency Children's Services (“ECS”) Division at ACS; and John Mattingly, the ACS Commissioner at the time of the events in question. Dkt. 72 (Defendants' R. 56.1 St. (“Defs.' St.”)) ¶¶ 1–9. The Defendants were all named in their individual and official capacities. The City of New York is also named as a Defendant under the Monell theory of municipal liability.

II. Facts

The events recounted below are undisputed, except whereas noted.

On March 19, 2009, T.W. went to school with scratches on his face and informed a school official that his aunt had scratched him that morning. Defs.' St. ¶¶ 10–11. The allegations were sent to ACS. Id. ¶ 12. That evening, ACS caseworkers Defendant Louissaint and non-party Tavaria Robertson went to the Walker home. Id. ¶ 13. The caseworkers first interviewed Walker, as T.W.'s aunt was not home, and then attempted to interview T.W. Id. ¶¶ 14–15. When the caseworkers told Walker that it would be best to interview T.W. alone, Walker interrupted the interview moments into the proceedings. Dkt. 71–2 (Pierre Decl., Ex. S, Investigation Progress Notes (“IPN”)) at 2. T.W. stopped speaking with the caseworkers once his father returned to the room. Id. Walker asked why the conversation had stopped and the caseworkers repeated that it would be best if T.W. was interviewed alone, which led to Walker becoming angry and yelling.³ Id. The caseworkers ended the interview at this point. Id.

Defendant Robinson was then assigned to the case. She visited the Walker home on March 25, 2009 and spoke with both Walker and the aunt. Defs.' St. ¶ 18. The aunt admitted that she caused T.W.'s scratches, but said that it was a mistake and that she had apologized to T.W. immediately. IPN at 6. The next day, Robinson went to T.W.'s school and interviewed T.W. and the school's staff. Defs.' St. ¶ 19. T.W.'s remedial studies teacher indicated that Walker was “in denial about T.W.'s limitations,” but also said that she had never observed T.W. to be abused or maltreated. IPN at 7.

Robinson then interviewed T.W., who told her that “he ha[d] suffered several beatings with a belt from his father, his biological mother and his aunt in the past.” Id. at 8.⁴ T.W. said that the last time that he received a beating from his aunt was in December 2008. Id. T.W. also presented marks on his body that he attributed to a beating from his aunt, though Robinson noted in her report that the marks were “not evident of beatings,” in her opinion. Id. T.W. also told Robinson that “his father had given his 1 year old brother a beating with a belt leaving bruises to [N.W.'s] body.” Id. However, Robinson noted that she had not observed bruises on N.W.'s clothed body. Id. T.W. went on to discuss arguments in the home, recount an incident where the aunt threw bleach in her husband's face, and an incident where T.W. received a beating from his aunt's brother. Id.

At the direction of Defendant White, Robinson arranged a family meeting to discuss the scratching incident, prior reports of domestic abuse, and offer potential support for the children. Defs.' St. ¶¶ 23–24. According to Robinson, Walker screamed and repeatedly hung up the phone when Robinson attempted to arrange the meeting. Id. ¶ 25. Walker refused to confirm the meeting times and did not appear at the meeting. Id. ¶ 26.⁵ Robinson and White attempted to hold the family meeting at the Walker home during an unannounced visit, but no one answered the door. Id. ¶ 27.

Plaintiffs deny Defendants' version of the facts and contend that Walker “did not want to attend a meeting because Robinson did not seem interested in investigating the facts and learning the truth[.]” Pl.'s Opp. St. ¶ 25. Plaintiffs contend that Robinson was attempting to goad Walker into lying about the aunt's abuse of T.W. Id. However, Plaintiffs admit that Walker told Robinson on the phone that “if she said one more word [about T.W. being abused], he would throw her out of the house because she was not looking at his son's interest or the facts.” Id.

Robinson visited T.W. at school for a second time on April 28, 2009. Defs.' St. ¶ 28. “Upon seeing [Robinson], T.W. became terrified, stating that [his father] would beat him if he discovered that [T.W.] had spoken to [ACS].” Id. ¶ 29. T.W. claimed to Robinson that the family had been home during the attempted family meeting, but had intentionally refused to let the ACS caseworkers in. Id. ¶ 30.

After these events, White and Robinson decided to hold a child safety conference. Id. ¶ 31. Plaintiffs contend that Defendants decided to hold this conference because “they wanted to start an Article 10 proceeding against [Walker] and pursue a removal of the children based on lies in order to retaliate against [Walker] for the exercise of his First Amendment right to freedom of speech.” Pls.' Opp. St. ¶ 31. Defendants state that they invited Walker to this conference by U.S. mail, which is undisputed, however, Plaintiffs deny that Robinson called Walker on his home and mobile phones to inform him of the conference. Defs.' St. ¶ 33. Nonetheless, it is undisputed that neither Walker nor any other family member appeared at the child safety conference on April 30, 2009, id. ¶ 34, though Plaintiffs contend that Walker was not notified in time, Pls.' Opp. St. ¶ 34.

The participants at the conference, White, Robinson, and non-party Dina Barkin, concluded that the proper course of action to ensure that the children's safety was to file a New York State Family Court Act Article 10 petition seeking a remand order against Walker and the aunt. IPN at 15–16; Defs.' St. ¶ 35. Defendants argue that they made this decision based on T.W.'s accusations of excessive corporal punishment, his stated fear of being beaten for talking to ACS caseworkers, prior allegations of domestic incidents involving the aunt, and Walker's “refusal to engage at the most basic level with ACS inquiries[.]” Defs.' St. ¶ 35. Plaintiffs deny that these were the reasons that Defendants sought the petition, citing their belief that...