383 F. Supp. 3d 764
N.D. Ohio2019Background
- Five-year-old Ta'Naejah McCloud, a developmentally disabled child, suffered repeated abuse by her mother Tequila Crump and Crump's partner Ursula Owens and died of homicide in March 2017; both perpetrators were criminally convicted.
- Multiple reports of burning, beating, malnourishment, and unsafe living conditions were made to Cuyahoga County Children and Family Services (CFS) between Oct. 2016 and March 2017; hospital staff notified CFS that injuries were not self-inflicted.
- Plaintiffs allege CFS workers (Quint, Jackson, Betts) failed to investigate required reports, interviewed Ta'Naejah in the presence of her alleged abusers, and returned or left her in the custody of Crump and Owens despite clear risk.
- Plaintiffs sued county officials (Budish in official capacity), CFS, the three social workers in their individual capacities, Crump, Owens, and others asserting § 1983 substantive and procedural due process claims plus state-law wrongful-death, survival, and statutory failure-to-report claims.
- Defendants moved to dismiss. The district court dismissed the § 1983 claim with prejudice (finding no plausible constitutional violation and granting qualified immunity) and declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state-law claims, dismissing them without prejudice.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether CFS is a suable entity | CFS named as defendant | CFS is a county agency and not sui juris | Dismissed CFS (not sui juris) |
| Whether county (via Budish) is liable under Monell | County had customs/policies of inadequate supervision/tolerance causing harm | No Monell policy/custom alleged; cannot rely on respondeat superior | County official-capacity claim dismissed for failure to plead Monell claim |
| Whether individual social workers violated substantive due process (custody or state-created-danger exceptions) | Workers affirmatively acted (co-custody, hospital discharge, interviews in abusers' presence, returns) creating special danger | Returning child or failing to investigate are inaction or status-quo acts; DeShaney bars these claims absent custody/affirmative creation of danger | Substantive due process claim dismissed; qualified immunity granted |
| Whether plaintiffs stated a procedural due process claim based on alleged failure to follow Ohio statutes and procedures | Statutes and rules create procedural rights that guarantee protective outcomes (e.g., investigation, removal) and denial deprived Ta'Naejah of process | Statutes impose duties but do not guarantee specific substantive outcomes; violations do not create federal due-process claim | Procedural due process claim dismissed |
Key Cases Cited
- DeShaney v. Winnebago County Dep't of Social Servs., 489 U.S. 189 (state generally has no substantive due-process duty to protect from private actors)
- Monell v. Dep't of Soc. Servs. of N.Y., 436 U.S. 658 (municipal liability requires a policy or custom)
- Connick v. Thompson, 563 U.S. 51 (failure to train can yield municipal liability only under deliberate indifference standard)
- Kentucky v. Graham, 473 U.S. 159 (official-capacity suit is suit against the government entity)
- Kallstrom v. City of Columbus, 136 F.3d 1055 (state-created-danger framework articulated)
- Stemler v. City of Florence, 126 F.3d 856 (officers who affirmatively placed plaintiff in danger could be liable)
- Engler v. Arnold, 862 F.3d 571 (explains DeShaney and state-created-danger contours in Sixth Circuit)
- Langdon v. Skelding, [citation="524 F. App'x 172"] (failure to investigate or remove does not satisfy affirmative-act prong for substantive due process)