Pittman v. Cuyahoga County Department of Children & Family Services
2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 10176
| 6th Cir. | 2011Background
- Pittman, father of Najee, seeks §1983 damages for deprivation of a fundamental parental right in custody proceedings.
- Najee and half-sister B.W. were removed into CCDCFS custody; Najee later placed with maternal great aunt and uncle after a juvenile court adjudication of neglect.
- Cynthia Hurry was the primary CCDCFS caseworker; she prepared and submitted key filings affecting custody and caregiver approval.
- Hurry filed for permanency and conducted a caregiver approval process; Pittman alleges misrepresentations and failure to keep him informed.
- CJ proceedings culminated in grants of legal custody to the Graveses and termination of CCDCFS supervisory control; Pittman alleged exclusion from the process.
- Pittman filed suit in 2005; district court granted summary judgment to CCDCFS but denied Hurry immunity; interlocutory appeal followed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Hurry is absolutely immune. | Pittman argues no absolute immunity for misrepresentations. | Hurry argues absolute immunity for acts as legal advocate in court proceedings. | Yes; Hurry is absolutely immune for filings and affidavits as a legal advocate. |
| Whether Hurry enjoys qualified immunity for non-advocacy actions. | Pittman contends Hurry manipulated caregiver process and cut him out. | Hurry is entitled to qualified immunity for discretionary conduct not amounting to a constitutional violation. | Yes; Hurry is qualifiedly immune for those actions. |
| Whether Pittman states a substantive due process claim against Hurry. | Pittman alleges deprivation of fundamental right to family integrity via Hurry's conduct. | Hurry's actions did not cause the deprivation; juvenile court decisions govern placement. | No substantive due process violation by Hurry; qualified immunity applies. |
| Whether Pittman states a procedural due process claim against Hurry. | Pittman argues inadequate notice and exclusion from proceedings due to Hurry's conduct. | Juvenile court notice and hearings govern; Hurry had no independent duty to inform Pittman. | No procedural due process violation; Pittman had adequate avenue to challenge placement. |
| Whether Ohio law assigns ultimate custody decisions to the juvenile court, insulating Hurry from liability. | District court misattributed control to Hurry over custody outcomes. | Juvenile court retains ultimate decisionmaking; Hurry acts as an advocate within that framework. | Juvenile court decisions control; Hurry's role as advocate remains protected by immunity. |
Key Cases Cited
- Holloway v. Brush, 220 F.3d 767 (6th Cir. 2000) (social workers entitled to absolute immunity when acting as legal advocates)
- Salyer v. Patrick, 874 F.2d 374 (6th Cir. 1989) (absolute immunity for filing juvenile abuse petitions)
- Rippy ex rel. Rippy v. Hattaway, 270 F.3d 416 (6th Cir. 2001) (absolute immunity for social workers' recommendations in custody matters)
- Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U.S. 409 (1986) (prosecutorial-like absolute immunity for advocates)
- Burns v. Reed, 500 U.S. 478 (1991) (witness/advocacy immunity for statements in judicial proceedings)
- Cady v. Arenac Cnty., 574 F.3d 334 (6th Cir. 2009) (absolute immunity applies to initiating and continuing investigations related to court proceedings)
- Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223 (2009) ( Modifies order-of-prong approach in qualified immunity analysis)
- Gregoire v. Biddle, 177 F.2d 579 (2d Cir. 1949) (absolute immunity as policy balancing for officers' conduct)