Brown v. Hatch, 984 F. Supp. 2d 700

Infant Miranda Henry was removed by Wayne County Juvenile Court and placed in foster care in September 2011; she died by suffocation while in foster care in October 2011.
Plaintiff Marvin Brown sued foster parent Dana Hatch and child-placement agency Starr Commonwealth alleging § 1983 substantive due process violations and multiple Michigan state-law claims.
Complaint alleged Starr had a contract with the State to place and supervise foster children and failed to train/supervise properly; Hatch allegedly had prior suspicions of abuse and was allegedly inadequately trained.
Facts alleged: Starr placed Miranda with Hatch; Hatch fell asleep in bed with the infant and rolled onto her, causing suffocation.
Defendants moved to dismiss: Hatch moved under Rule 12(c); Starr moved under Rule 12(b)(6) (construed as 12(c)). The Court heard argument and ruled.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Hatch is a state actor for § 1983	Hatch acted under color of state law as Starr's agent, so she is a state actor	Foster parents performing day-to-day care are private actors, not state actors	Hatch is not a state actor; § 1983 claim against Hatch dismissed
Whether Starr Commonwealth is a state actor for § 1983	Starr assumed state duties via MDHS contract and court placement, making its conduct fairly attributable to the State	Starr contested but provided little analysis; argument that foster care is not exclusive state function	Complaint sufficiently alleges state action as to Starr for jurisdictional purposes
Whether Plaintiff plausibly alleged deprivation of federal right (deliberate indifference)	Starr was deliberately indifferent by placing Miranda with an untrained foster parent and failing to require safe-sleep training	Failure to train/supervise, even if negligent or contrary to state policy, does not amount to deliberate indifference under the Constitution	§ 1983 claim failed: alleged failures to train/supervise did not plausibly show deliberate indifference; Count III dismissed with prejudice
Whether to retain supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims	N/A — Plaintiff seeks damages under state law after federal claim	N/A — Defendants moved to dismiss federal claim; Court must decide retention	Court declined supplemental jurisdiction and dismissed remaining state claims without prejudice

Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (plausibility pleading standard governs Rule 12 motions)
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (courts accept well-pleaded facts but not legal conclusions)
Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825 (deliberate indifference standard for safety claims)
Rendell-Baker v. Kohn, 457 U.S. 830 (private conduct actionable under § 1983 only if fairly attributable to the State)
West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42 (state-action/state-color-of-law principles for § 1983)
Lugar v. Edmondson Oil Co., 457 U.S. 922 (state-action requires conduct fairly attributable to the State)
Adickes v. S.H. Kress & Co., 398 U.S. 144 (state compulsion test for state action)
Burton v. Wilmington Parking Auth., 365 U.S. 715 (symbiotic relationship/nexus test for state action)
Leshko v. Servis, 423 F.3d 337 (foster-care day-to-day activities not traditionally exclusive state functions)
Lintz v. Skipski, 25 F.3d 304 (Sixth Circuit decision rejecting foster parent state-actor status in similar context)
Meador v. Cabinet for Human Res., 902 F.2d 474 (recognizing foster-child substantive due process right when state places child in known-dangerous environment)