PETERSON v. ALLEGHENY COUNTY
2:21-cv-00078
W.D. Pa.Jan 31, 2022Background
Plaintiffs (parents Robert and Rebecca Peterson and seven minor children) sued 25 defendants—including Allegheny County DHS/OCYF employees, school officials, police, court-appointed therapists/psychologists, and a hospital—alleging constitutional violations and state torts arising from two ChildLine reports (Jan 15, 2019 re: D.P.; Feb 6, 2019 re: H.P.) and ensuing dependency proceedings.
After the H.P. report, OCYF caseworker Birdseye investigated, obtained emergency custody authorization, and minors were removed; Family Court later adjudicated several children dependent and issued multiple orders (shelter care, disposition, permanency reviews), some affirmed on appeal.
Plaintiffs seek only money damages (no injunctive or declaratory relief) for 31 counts mixing § 1983 claims, federal conspiracy statutes, Pennsylvania constitutional claims, and state common-law torts.
Multiple defendants moved to dismiss. The district court considered public Family Court records and ChildLine reports at the Rule 12(b)(6) stage.
The court dismissed the Amended Complaint in full, granting leave to amend on many claims but dismissing certain claims and defendants with prejudice (e.g., Pennsylvania constitutional claims and several state-law claims barred by statutory immunity or time limits).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Rooker–Feldman jurisdictional bar | Petersons: federal court may hear damages claims; not seeking to overturn state judgments | County: federal suit is "inextricably intertwined" with Family Court orders; plaintiffs are state-court losers | Rooker–Feldman does not bar jurisdiction—claims seek damages for defendants' actions, not review of state judgments |
| Younger abstention | Petersons: federal forum appropriate for damages claims | Defendants: federal suit would interfere with ongoing state proceedings | Younger abstention inappropriate because plaintiffs seek damages that could not have been fully litigated in state proceedings |
| Parental capacity to sue for minors (Fed. R. Civ. P. 17) | Parents: retain legal capacity to represent minor children despite custody changes | Defendants: parents lost custody so lack capacity to represent minors | Parents may represent minors; parental rights not terminated, so capacity under Rule 17(c) remains |
| Statute of limitations (claims tied to Jan 15, 2019 D.P. report) | Plaintiffs: continuing violation theory ties prior acts to later conduct | Defendants: two-year limitations bar individually actionable acts before Jan 18, 2019 | Claims arising from the Jan 15, 2019 events are time-barred and dismissed with prejudice; some follow-up acts unclear and may survive |
| Civil-rights conspiracy pleading (§§ 1983, 1985, 1986) | Plaintiffs: alleged coordinated misconduct among multiple entities | Defendants: allegations are conclusory, lack specific agreement or overt acts | Conspiracy claims dismissed for failure to plead meeting-of-minds and overt acts with specificity; leave to amend granted |
| Absolute/quasi-judicial/witness immunity for child-welfare/therapist/expert actors | Plaintiffs: many defendant acts were investigative/administrative, not prosecutorial or judicial, so immunity inapplicable | Defendants (OCYF supervisors, TRAC, AFA/psychologist): actions were prosecutorial or court-ordered functions entitled to absolute/quasi-judicial or witness immunity | Court concluded many OCYF/DHS individual defendants, TRAC, AFA, and the court-appointed psychologist are entitled to immunity for core § 1983 and state-law claims as pleaded; dismissals largely with leave to amend where narrow exceptions might be pled |
| Monell municipal liability for Allegheny County / NASD / NRJPB | Plaintiffs: County and agencies had unconstitutional policies/customs or final policymakers ratified misconduct | Defendants: plaintiffs plead only conclusory policies/customs and fail to identify final policymakers or patterns | Monell claims dismissed for failure to identify a policy/custom, final policymaker, causation, or a failure-to-train pattern; leave to amend as to county claim, municipal claims otherwise dismissed (some with prejudice) |
| Qualified immunity for police officer (Det. Durzo) | Plaintiffs: officer stalked/harassed child at school and improperly disclosed ChildLine report | Defendants: alleged conduct does not violate clearly established constitutional rights; at most non-constitutional harassment | Court found alleged conduct insufficient to show conscience-shocking constitutional violation; Durzo entitled to qualified immunity on pleaded facts; leave to amend allowed |
| State-law immunities (PTCA, sovereign immunity, CPSL) | Plaintiffs: state tort and confidentiality claims viable; CPSL immunities inapplicable if bad faith | Defendants: PTCA and sovereign immunity bar many state torts; CPSL protects mandated reporters and cooperators in good faith | Court held many state-law claims barred by PTCA or sovereign immunity and dismissed with prejudice; AHN’s state-law claims dismissed without prejudice because CPSL good-faith presumption might be rebutted with more facts |
Key Cases Cited
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (plausibility pleading standard)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (apply Twombly plausibility to civil complaints)
- Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Saudi Basic Indus. Corp., 544 U.S. 280 (2005) (limits of Rooker–Feldman)
- Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U.S. 409 (1976) (absolute immunity for prosecutors)
- Monell v. Dep’t of Soc. Servs., 436 U.S. 658 (1978) (municipal liability under § 1983)
- Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223 (2009) (qualified immunity prong sequencing)
- Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800 (1982) (objective qualified immunity standard)
- Forrester v. White, 484 U.S. 219 (1988) (functional approach to judicial/quasi-judicial immunity)
- Connick v. Thompson, 563 U.S. 51 (2011) (failure-to-train deliberate indifference standard)
- Ernst v. Child & Youth Servs., 108 F.3d 486 (3d Cir. 1997) (absolute immunity for caseworkers when prosecutorial)
- B.S. v. Somerset Cty., 704 F.3d 250 (3d Cir. 2013) (limits of Rooker–Feldman and immunity for social workers in dependency context)
- Russell v. Richardson, 905 F.3d 239 (3d Cir. 2018) (no immunity for marshal’s excessive-force conduct executing court order)
- Hughes v. Long, 242 F.3d 121 (3d Cir. 2001) (judicial immunity for court-appointed custody evaluators)
- McArdle v. Tronetti, 961 F.2d 1083 (3d Cir. 1992) (quasi-judicial immunity for court-ordered evaluators)