282 F. Supp. 3d 718
S.D. Ill.2017Background
- Jessica Golian, a NYC special-education teacher, reported suspected neglect of two students (children of Jennifer DeJesus) to the State Central Register and told SCR/ACS she wanted confidentiality because she feared retaliation.
- An ACS attorney, Jeremey Harper, contacted Golian, subpoenaed her to testify in Family Court, and she did not appear.
- Afterward, DeJesus physically assaulted Golian outside the school and stated she knew Golian "called ACS on me."
- Golian sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (substantive due process) and Monell municipal liability against ACS, the City, and Harper, plus state-law tort claims against ACS/City/Harper and assault/IIED claims against DeJesus.
- Defendants moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6). The court dismissed federal claims with prejudice, dismissed state claims without prejudice for lack of supplemental jurisdiction, found Harper entitled to absolute prosecutorial immunity, and declined to enter default judgment against DeJesus.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether ACS attorney Harper is immune from §1983 suit | Harper revealed Golian's identity (via subpoena or otherwise) and so violated due process | Harper's subpoena and related Family Court litigation activity are prosecutorial functions entitled to absolute immunity | Harper entitled to absolute prosecutorial immunity; Harper dismissed |
| Whether disclosure of Golian's identity violated substantive due process under a "special relationship" theory | Mandatory reporter status creates a custodial/state relationship giving rise to affirmative protection | Teacher reporting duty does not place teacher in involuntary custody; no special relationship under DeShaney line | No special-relationship liability; claim fails |
| Whether disclosure (or subpoena) supports a "state-created danger" claim | ACS conduct increased foreseeable risk of attack by disclosing identity or otherwise made attack more likely | Second Circuit requires affirmative encouragement or official sanction of private violence; mere disclosure or subpoena is not such conduct | No state-created-danger liability; complaint lacks allegations of encouragement/official sanction |
| Whether federal court should retain supplemental jurisdiction over state-law tort claims (and enter default judgment against DeJesus) | Golian sought damages against municipal defendants and DeJesus; default entered against DeJesus earlier | Federal claims dismissed, so supplemental jurisdiction is discretionary and may be declined | Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction; state claims and default judgment against DeJesus dismissed without prejudice |
Key Cases Cited
- Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U.S. 409 (1976) (prosecutors are entitled to absolute immunity for actions intimately associated with the judicial phase)
- DeShaney v. Winnebago County Dept. of Social Servs., 489 U.S. 189 (1989) (Due Process Clause generally does not impose affirmative duty to protect from private violence)
- Monell v. Department of Social Services, 436 U.S. 658 (1978) (municipal liability under § 1983 requires an underlying constitutional violation and an official policy or custom)
- Matican v. City of New York, 524 F.3d 151 (2d Cir. 2008) (discusses special-relationship and state-created-danger theories and the conscience-shocking standard)
- Okin v. Village of Cornwall-on-Hudson Police Dept., 577 F.3d 415 (2d Cir. 2009) (Second Circuit requires affirmative conduct amounting to encouragement or official sanction for state-created-danger liability)
- Cornejo v. Bell, 592 F.3d 121 (2d Cir. 2010) (extends absolute immunity to officials performing functions analogous to prosecutors)
- Daniels v. Williams, 474 U.S. 327 (1986) (negligent injuries by government actors do not give rise to substantive due process claims)