164 F. Supp. 3d 1294
D. Colo.2016Background
- Plaintiff (born 1994) was a ward in foster care, placed with adoptive parent Jeremiah Lovato in Colorado in 2008; adoption finalized December 11, 2008. Lovato was later criminally convicted of child abuse.
- Adoption Alliance (private Colorado adoption agency) and employees Melanie Tern and Vicki Little were contracted to perform post-placement/ICPC duties for Colorado. Little performed monthly visits; Tern supervised.
- Moffat County DSS caseworkers Audrey Amedei and Amanda Cramer investigated multiple school and police reports in 2008 indicating abuse (black eyes, weight loss, bruises); they declined to remove Plaintiff or take further action.
- Plaintiff sued: federal § 1983 due-process claims (special-relationship and state-created danger), failure-to-train/supervise, and Colorado state claims for negligence and outrageous conduct.
- Magistrate recommended dismissal of all claims; district court adopted in part and rejected in part: dismissed all § 1983 claims against Adoption Alliance, Tern, and Little (no state action), but allowed § 1983 special-relationship claims to proceed against Amedei and Cramer in their individual capacities; dismissed state-created danger and several other claims; retained pendent state-law claims against all defendants.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Adoption Alliance and its employees acted "under color of state law" for § 1983 (public-function & symbiotic-relationship tests) | Adoption Alliance performed state-authorized ICPC and post-placement functions under contract, creating state action. | Adoption Alliance is a private contractor; adoption/foster functions aren’t exclusively state functions and extensive regulation/contracting doesn’t equal state action. | Dismissed § 1983 claims against Adoption Alliance, Tern, Little — allegations insufficient under public-function and symbiotic-relationship tests. |
| Whether Amedei and Cramer can be liable under § 1983 via the special-relationship doctrine | They assumed responsibility for investigating reports and thus had custody-like responsibility and professional duties to protect Plaintiff. | They did not create custody and merely investigated; any failures were not conscience-shocking. | Denied dismissal: special-relationship § 1983 claim against Amedei and Cramer in their individual capacities allowed to proceed. |
| Whether Amedei and Cramer are liable under the state-created-danger theory | Their investigative choices and alleged discouragement of others increased Plaintiff’s vulnerability. | Their conduct was omission/inaction, not affirmative acts required for danger-creation liability. | Dismissed the state-created-danger claim — allegations do not show the requisite affirmative acts. |
| Whether failure-to-train/supervise and official-capacity remedies survive | Plaintiff alleges supervisory failure by Amedei and seeks injunctive relief (apology) in official capacity. | No plausible supervisory-policy allegations; Eleventh Amendment bars official-capacity monetary suits and apology is not an appropriate equitable remedy. | Dismissed failure-to-train claim and official-capacity claims (apology injunction unavailable); qualified immunity not available on the surviving special-relationship claim. |
Key Cases Cited
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (plausibility standard for complaints)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (disregard conclusory legal assertions on Rule 12(b)(6))
- Gallagher v. Neil Young Freedom Concert, 49 F.3d 1442 (10th Cir. 1995) (tests for private-party state action)
- Jackson v. Metropolitan Edison Co., 419 U.S. 345 (tests for state-action/nexus)
- Marsh v. Alabama, 326 U.S. 501 (public-function doctrine)
- DeShaney v. Winnebago County Dept. of Social Servs., 489 U.S. 189 (special-relationship analysis)
- Yvonne L. ex rel. Lewis v. New Mexico Dep’t of Human Servs., 959 F.2d 883 (10th Cir. 1992) (foster children as custodial relationship)
- Schwartz v. Booker, 702 F.3d 573 (10th Cir. 2012) (scope of special-relationship for foster children; qualified-immunity discussion)
- Johnson v. Rodrigues, 293 F.3d 1196 (10th Cir. 2002) (private adoption agency not state actor under public-function test)
- Currier v. Doran, 242 F.3d 905 (10th Cir. 2001) (state-created-danger elements)
- Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223 (qualified immunity framework)