Katelyn Webb v. Chelsea Smith, 936 F.3d 808

DHS social workers removed six minor children (two for Webb; three for the Lays) into emergency protective custody under Arkansas law, which permits up to 72 hours without court order and requires prompt post-seizure proceedings to extend custody.
Webb’s children were held about 28 days after DHS obtained an ex parte order and multiple delayed hearings; Webb alleges false allegations and untimely post-deprivation process.
The Lay children were held about 11 days; the juvenile court ultimately returned them with conditions on parental contact.
Plaintiffs sued the social workers and DHS supervisors in their individual and official capacities under the First, Fourth, and Fourteenth Amendments alleging unlawful seizures, knowingly false petition allegations, delayed post-seizure hearings, supervisory liability, and a facial challenge to Arkansas statutes permitting >72-hour delays.
The district court dismissed portions of the suit (Rooker-Feldman barred some claims; some due-process claims dismissed; facial challenge found moot), denied leave to amend as futile, and dismissed the action after considering state-court transcripts.
On appeal, the Eighth Circuit reviewed standing, mootness, Rooker-Feldman application, and whether the individual social workers caused the alleged post-deprivation hearing delays.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Standing for damages against individuals	Seizures and court proceedings flowed from defendants’ actions; damages relief is appropriate	Injuries not fairly traceable to defendants	Plaintiffs have standing to seek damages against individual defendants (traceability met at pleading stage)
Standing for declaratory/injunctive relief (facial challenge)	Ongoing risk and prior DHS contacts make injury likely to recur; claim capable of repetition yet evading review	Past injuries do not show a real, immediate threat of future violation	Plaintiffs lack standing for prospective relief; facial challenge dismissed without prejudice
Timeliness of post-deprivation hearings (due process)	Delays (28 and 11 days) violated parents’ due-process rights; social workers responsible	Social workers promptly initiated judicial process; they lacked authority to schedule hearings; delays attributable to courts	District court properly dismissed claims against social workers and supervisors for untimely hearings (no causal role by social workers)
Rooker–Feldman bar to § 1983 claims alleging false ex parte petitions	Plaintiffs seek damages for unconstitutional seizure by social workers, not to overturn state judgments	District court invoked Rooker–Feldman to bar claims	Rooker–Feldman does not apply because state proceedings resulted in no final judgments; claims against social workers are not barred and may proceed on remand

Whisman ex rel. Whisman v. Rinehart, 119 F.3d 1303 (8th Cir. 1997) (parents’ liberty interest and prompt hearing analysis)
Swipies v. Kofka, 419 F.3d 709 (8th Cir. 2005) (post-seizure hearing promptness analyzed; 17-day delay found not prompt)
Riehm v. Engelking, 538 F.3d 952 (8th Cir. 2008) (§ 1983 redress for alleged unconstitutional seizure distinct from overturning state orders)
Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Saudi Basic Indus. Corp., 544 U.S. 280 (2005) (scope of Rooker–Feldman limited to federal review of state-court judgments)
Friends of the Earth, Inc. v. Laidlaw Envtl. Servs., 528 U.S. 167 (2000) (mootness and capable-of-repetition-yet-evading-review doctrine)
Hayes v. Faulkner County, 388 F.3d 669 (8th Cir. 2004) (distinguishing defendants’ duty to cause prompt judicial appearance)
Town of Chester v. Laroe Estates, Inc., 137 S. Ct. 1645 (2017) (standing requires injury for each claim and each form of relief)
Frost v. Sioux City, 920 F.3d 1158 (8th Cir. 2019) (standing for prospective relief requires real and immediate threat)