Lorene Mann v. Meldon Vogel
2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 3694
| 7th Cir. | 2013Background
- DCFS investigated Mann for alleged child abuse/neglect at her Rainy Day Care Center and imposed a protective plan after finding inadequate supervision.
- Center operations were halted under the plan; Mann and her husband were barred from serving children pending investigation and corrective actions.
- DCFS ultimately found the violation substantiated, labeling Mann as a violator and placing her name in a state abuse database.
- Mann appealed the indicated finding; an ALJ expunged the indicated finding in an April 2009 hearing.
- Mann sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, asserting due process violations related to the protective plan, investigation, and expungement appeal; the district court dismissed, then Mann amended and was again dismissed with prejudice.
- The Seventh Circuit affirmed, holding Mann failed to plausibly plead a due process violation.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did Mann have a cognizable liberty interest at stake under the stigma-plus test? | Mann's liberty interest was harmed by the stigma and loss of the Center. | No protected liberty interest; stigma alone does not suffice. | Yes, Mann pleaded a stigma-plus liberty interest. |
| Was imposition of the protective plan due process-protected and properly voluntary? | Protective plan imposed without prior hearing and contestability. | Plan was voluntary; no hearing required before consent. | No due process violation; plan was voluntary and reviewable; no pre-hearing required. |
| Were there due process issues from the investigation's timing and delays? | Delay in investigation violated due process. | Delay did not amount to a due process violation given the context and post-deprivation safeguards. | Delay did not constitute a due process violation. |
| Did the alleged meritless complaint justify indefinite closure without process? | Center was closed on meritless grounds. | Investigation and protective measures were aimed at child safety; procedures balanced interests. | Procedures adequate; termination not required on meritless complaint. |
| Was Mann entitled to additional hearings or expedited proceedings under Illinois law? | Needed timely closure orders and revocation timelines. | Corrective plan and review processes provided necessary process. | Procedures satisfied due process; no entitlement to extra hearings. |
Key Cases Cited
- Dupuy v. Samuels (Dupuy I), 397 F.3d 493 (7th Cir. 2005) (stigma-plus and due process in child-care investigations; expungement and process considerations)
- Dupuy v. Samuels (Dupuy II), 465 F.3d 757 (7th Cir. 2006) (safety plans; voluntary nature; hearings when rights are not impaired)
- Khan v. Bland, 630 F.3d 519 (7th Cir. 2010) (test for procedural due process in liberty interests under §1983)
- Paul v. Davis, 424 U.S. 693 (U.S. (1976)) (stigma plus framework; reputation and employment rights)
- Hojnacki v. Klein-Acosta, 285 F.3d 544 (7th Cir. 2002) (no cognizable liberty interest in government-damaging reputation alone)
- Doe v. Heck, 327 F.3d 492 (7th Cir. 2003) (familial rights heightened scrutiny in related caselaw)