484 F. App'x 983
5th Cir.2012Background
- Custody dispute between Resa Latiolais and Griffith over minor Cole; Latiolais resided with Cole; Griffith sought paternity/sole custody; Griffith’s alleged conspiracy involved Latiolais, Officer Gallow, Cravins and others to portray Latiolais as unfit.
- Griffith and associates allegedly engaged in investigations and coercive actions against Latiolais including false abuse accusations and restraining orders; incidents around hospital visit and custody hearing led to alleged deprivation of Latiolais’ parental rights.
- Officer Gallow’s hospital visit conduct and subsequent testimony at custody hearings, including disputed phone records, were central to the alleged conspiracy.
- Cravins, a Louisiana Senator, allegedly used his influence to influence Deputy Montgomery in Griffith’s favor, contributing to a constitutional deprivation claim.
- District court denied summary judgment on qualified immunity; the district court concluded there were genuine disputes of material fact; on appeal, the Fifth Circuit affirms the denial and discusses qualified immunity standards.
- Latiolais filed a §1983 action in 2009; district court denied Gallow and Cravins’ qualified-immunity motions; the issue on appeal is whether those denials were proper given alleged facts and law.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Latiolais stated a §1983 conspiracy against Gallow and Cravins. | Latiolais alleges Gallow knowingly aided Griffith by presenting false evidence and testimony. | Gallow/Cravins contend no constitutional deprivation or conspiracy was shown. | There are genuine disputes of material fact; qualified immunity denied on appeal. |
| Whether the right to parental care/custody was clearly established for purposes of qualified immunity. | Right to care, custody, and control of one’s child is clearly established. | Not clearly established under the particular circumstances. | Right established under Stanley, Wooley; qualified-immunity issues preserved for factual dispute. |
| Whether Cravins’ conduct can be deemed part of a conspiracy to deprive Latiolais of custody. | Cravins’ phone communications and influence contributed to deprivation of rights. | Argument focused on individual actions; conspiracy proof required. | District court’s conspiracy ruling affirmed; evidence supports potential liability under conspiracy theory. |
| Whether evidence shows a colorable constitutional violation by Gallow/Cravins and if continuing-tort concepts apply. | Claims arise from ongoing conduct and testimony at custody proceedings. | Potential limitations/prescription defenses raised. | Continued tort analysis applicable; summary judgment denied on qualified immunity. |
Key Cases Cited
- Stanley v. Illinois, 405 U.S. 645 (1972) (establishes fundamental parental rights in custody context)
- Hodorowski v. Ray, 844 F.2d 1210 (5th Cir. 1988) (privacy right of the family to stay together against state interference)
- Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800 (1982) (officials shielded by qualified immunity absent clearly established rights)
- Ontiveros v. City of Rosenberg, Tex., 564 F.3d 379 (5th Cir. 2009) (two-step test for qualified immunity; clearly established right and objective reasonableness)
- Brewer v. Wilkinson, 3 F.3d 816 (5th Cir. 1993) (analysis of qualified-immunity standards in §1983 cases)
- Gallow v. Cravins (various references in text), - (-) (illustrative of factual disputes and testimony in custody context (not a separate reporter case))