McCaul v. Ardsley Union Free School District
514 F. App'x 1
2d Cir.2013Background
- McCaul sued Ardsley Union Free School District, Dr. Mason, and Farruggio in the SDNY alleging substantive due process, malicious prosecution, and intentional infliction of emotional distress from a CPS report.
- The CPS report allegedly led to a neglect proceeding against McCaul, which was later withdrawn and followed by an apology from CPS.
- McCaul contends the SCR listing and related stigma deprived her of career opportunities, foster/adoptive potential, and other liberties, constituting a due process violation.
- The district court dismissed the claims under Rule 12(b)(6), applying de novo review to the complaint with all inferences in McCaul’s favor.
- The court found no custody loss and no tangible SCR burden sufficient to state a substantive due process claim, and dismissed the malicious prosecution claim; it also exercised supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Substantive due process required loss of custody or stigma-plus | McCaul asserts custody loss or stigma-plus via SCR; protection is violated. | No custody loss; no tangible burden from SCR; claim not viable. | Substantive due process claim failed; no custody loss or stigma-plus established. |
| Malicious prosecution under state and federal law | District initiated suit with malice and without probable cause, causing special injury. | Claims fail due to lack of malice, probable cause, or special injury; overlap with federal standard. | District court did not err; malicous prosecution claim properly dismissed, with supplemental jurisdiction appropriate. |
Key Cases Cited
- Southerland v. City of New York, 680 F.3d 127 (2d Cir. 2011) (protected liberty interest in child custody balanced against state interest)
- Tenenbaum v. Williams, 193 F.3d 581 (2d Cir. 1999) (liberty interest and substantive due process framework)
- Cox v. Warwick Valley Central School Dist., 654 F.3d 267 (2d Cir. 2011) (requirements for substantive due process in custody context)
- Valmonte v. Bane, 18 F.3d 992 (2d Cir. 1994) (stigma-plus doctrine and tangible burden on employment prospects)
- Paul v. Davis, 424 U.S. 693 (1980) (stigma alone not enough; needs additional state-imposed burden)
- Engel v. CBS, Inc., 145 F.3d 499 (2d Cir. 1998) (special injury requirement for malicious prosecution)
- O'Brien v. Alexander, 101 F.3d 1479 (2d Cir. 1996) (elements of NY malicious prosecution; overlap with federal claim)
- Engel, 93 N.Y.2d 195 (1999) (special injury articulated for NY malicious prosecution)