Chanel Hall v. Scott Dixon, 497 F. App'x 366

Jasmine Preston, an eight-week-premature child with serious medical needs, died in Cochran’s foster home while under TDFPS Lutheran supervision; Hall sued TDPRS, employees, and Lutheran under §1983 and common law, later seeking leave to amend to add a §1983 claim against Lutheran.
TDFPS investigated Jasmine’s care after Hall refused surgery; TDFPS temporarily gained Jasmine’s custody for medical care and later placed her with Cochran under Lutheran verification.
Cochran, supervised by TDFPS, cared for Jasmine from Oct 2008; Hall raised concerns about Cochran’s hygiene and care, which Smith documented in monthly visits.
In 2009 Jasmine needed a life-saving tracheostomy and potential 24-hour nursing care; a state court ordered continued placement with Cochran until surgery, then transfer after recovery; surgery delayed.
Jasmine died July 12, 2009 after tracheostomy complications; Hall filed suit in state court, which became federal; district court granted summary judgment for TDFPS and employees and dismissed Lutheran’s state-law claims, and Hall sought reconsideration and leave to amend; on appeal Hall challenges several pre-answer and post-judgment rulings.
The court AFFIRMED the district court’s rulings on the foregoing issues.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Jurisdiction to review district orders	Hall intended to appeal the September 30, 2010 order	Appellees contend no final judgment	Court has jurisdiction to review the challenged orders
Timeliness of summary-judgment ruling	Hall needed more time to respond due to discovery delays	Court did not abuse discretion; ample opportunity existed	No reversible error in issuing summary judgment prior to Hall's merits response
Standing to seek declaratory relief	Declaratory relief would redress future injury	Hall lacked Article III standing	Lack of standing; declaratory-relief claims dismissed for want of jurisdiction
Leave to amend to add §1983 against Lutheran	Lutheran acted under color of state law; amendment should be allowed	Amendment would be futile; Lutheran not a state actor	District court did not abuse discretion; amendment denied as futile
Qualified immunity for Smith on §1983 claim	Smith knowingly disregarded Jasmine's grave risk	Smith acted reasonably; no deliberate indifference established	Smith entitled to qualified immunity; §1983 claim against Smith failed

Am. Mfrs. Mut. Ins. Co. v. Sullivan, 526 U.S. 40 (U.S. 1999) (fair attribution requires at least state action or nexus-like conditions)
Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825 (U.S. 1994) (deliberate indifference requires a culpable, conscious disregard of risk)
Hernandez ex rel. Hernandez v. Texas DP&RS, 380 F.3d 872 (5th Cir. 2004) (deliberate indifference standard for foster-child due-process claims)