931 F. Supp. 2d 311
D.N.H.2013Background
- Plaintiffs Katz and Grodman lost custody of Eleonora to DCYF following state neglect proceedings in 2006 and dispositional orders in 2007-2009.
- Superior Court awarded DCYF legal custody and Eleonora’s placement at Crotched Mountain; visits were supervised and restricted.
- Guardian ad litem involvement and subsequent guardianship petitions culminated in DCYF obtaining guardianship until Eleonora’s eighteenth birthday and beyond via family division orders.
- Eleonora was placed at Crotched Mountain and later at Brattleboro Retreat for assessment; the guardianship and custody decisions were appealed in state courts, with varying outcomes.
- Plaintiffs allege retaliatory conduct by Timberlane, DCYF, and law enforcement, plus improper guardianship actions and constitutional rights violations, leading to federal suit.
- Plaintiffs pursued this action in 2010, with multiple amended complaints; the court ultimately dismissed the claims on multiple grounds including immunity and standing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Can DCYF be sued under §1983 as a state agency? | DCYF is a proper defendant for constitutional claims. | DCYF is not a ‘person’ under §1983; claims against DCYF must be dismissed. | Claims against DCYF dismissed. |
| Does Rooker-Feldman bar challenges to state-court custody orders? | State-court decisions violated constitutional rights and can be reviewed here. | Rooker-Feldman bars review of state-court judgments; challenges to dispositional orders are barred. | Rooker-Feldman applies; claims challenging state-court custody/dispositional orders dismissed. |
| Are the §1983 claims against most defendants barred by qualified immunity? | Defendants violated clearly established rights by actions in custody/guardianship and arrests. | Defendants acted with probable cause and/or reasonable belief; rights not clearly established. | Qualified immunity bars these claims. |
| Are retaliatory-conspiracy or Rehabilitation Act claims plausibly alleged? | Defendants conspired to retaliate for First Amendment activity and to drain funds. | Plaintiffs fail to plead plausible conspiracy or Rehabilitation Act violations. | Claims dismissed for lack of plausibility and independent grounds. |
| Are Eleonora-centered claims (as next friend or through guardianship) properly brought by plaintiffs? | Plaintiffs should represent Eleonora’s rights in federal court. | Eleonora cannot be represented pro se; guardianship limits standing; next-friend status unresolved. | Eleonora’s claims dismissed; guardianship representation not established for this suit. |
Key Cases Cited
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (U.S. 2009) (plausibility standard for pleading complaints)
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (U.S. 2007) (plausibility standard for pleading claims)
- Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Saudi Basic Indus. Corp., 544 U.S. 280 (U.S. 2005) (statutory preclusion and judicial review principles in dismissals)
- Hatch v. Dep’t for Children, Youth & Their Families, 274 F.3d 12 (1st Cir. 2001) (government interest in child welfare allows investigations; no right to be free from investigation)
- PJ ex rel. Jensen v. Wagner, 603 F.3d 1182 (10th Cir. 2010) (guardianship decisions; clearly established rights limitations)
- Carter v. Lindgren, 502 F.3d 26 (1st Cir. 2007) (ex parte guardianship and emergency removals; due process considerations)
- Wagenmann v. Adams, 829 F.2d 196 (1st Cir. 1987) (faulty bail influence and governmental liability standards)
- Gorelik v. Costin, N/A (N/A) (not included due to formatting)