TREWORGY v. MAYHEW
1:14-cv-00097
D. Me.Feb 10, 2015Background
- Plaintiffs are family members of Paul Treworgy, who was placed under a public guardianship for about one month in 2011; they sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and the Maine Constitution challenging probate proceedings and records and seeking expungement and injunctive relief.
- Defendants included Mary Mayhew (former public guardian), Penobscot County Commissioners, and Susan Almy (Register of Probate); Plaintiffs also named Jodi Ingraham but failed to effect timely service.
- Magistrate Judge issued a Recommended Decision partially denying and partially granting motions to dismiss; this Court conducted a de novo review after objections by Mayhew and Almy.
- The Court affirmed dismissal of: Count V (Uniform Health Care Decisions Act), Count VI (§ 1983 municipal custom/policy), and Counts I–IV (§ 1983) and Count VII (Maine Constitution) as to the County Commissioners and Mayhew in her individual capacity.
- The Court reversed the Recommended Decision’s allowance of claims against Mayhew (official capacity) and Almy (official capacity), concluding Plaintiffs failed to state any claim against Mayhew or Almy and thus granted both motions to dismiss.
- The Court denied Plaintiffs’ motion to extend time to serve Jodi Ingraham and dismissed claims against Ingraham without prejudice for failure to timely serve.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Plaintiffs stated a § 1983 claim seeking prospective injunctive relief (expungement) against Mayhew in her official capacity | Mayhew’s role as public guardian and the public guardianship record stigmatized Paul and his family; expungement is appropriate and addresses continuing harm | Any stigma and liberty impacts flowed from the Probate Court’s guardianship order, not from Mayhew; injunctive relief against Mayhew would not necessarily remove probate records; Rooker–Feldman may bar relief | Claim dismissed: Plaintiffs failed the "stigma plus" requirement and cannot obtain prospective injunctive relief against Mayhew in her official capacity |
| Whether Plaintiffs pleaded municipal liability under § 1983 against Almy (Register of Probate) based on county customs/practices | Plaintiffs allege customs/practices (lack of notice, emergency hearings, failure to record, denial of counsel) and attribute constitutional deprivations to Penobscot County/Almy | Allegations are conclusory and limited to the Treworgy case; actions complied with state probate statutes, rules, and judicial orders, insulating the County/Almy from municipal liability | Claim dismissed: complaints about probate procedures are insufficiently pleaded as municipal custom and are governed by state law/judicial direction, so no plausible municipal liability |
| Whether Counts I–IV (§ 1983) and Count VII (Maine Constitution) survive against County Commissioners and Mayhew individually | Plaintiffs seek relief for deprivation of liberty and familial association arising from guardianship proceedings | Defendants moved to dismiss these claims; no objections to magistrate recommendation to dismiss these counts as to County Commissioners and Mayhew individually | Dismissed as recommended by the Magistrate Judge |
| Whether Plaintiffs showed good cause to extend time to serve Jodi Ingraham | Plaintiffs moved to extend service time after missing the deadline | Defendants opposed; Court ordered Plaintiffs to show cause for failure to serve | Motion to extend denied; claims against Ingraham dismissed without prejudice |
Key Cases Cited
- O’Shea v. Littleton, 414 U.S. 488 (acknowledging need for continuing, present adverse effects to obtain prospective relief)
- Mead v. Independence Ass’n, 684 F.3d 226 (1st Cir. 2012) (stigma-plus standard applied in First Circuit)
- URI Student Senate v. Town of Narragansett, 631 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 2011) (requiring tangible "plus" beyond reputational harm for name-clearing-type claims)
- Hawkins v. R.I. Lottery Comm’n, 238 F.3d 112 (1st Cir. 2001) (stigma-plus causation requirement)
- Gomes v. University of Maine Sys., 304 F. Supp. 2d 117 (D. Me. 2004) (expungement claim in university disciplinary context)
- Bisbal-Ramos v. City of Mayaguez, 467 F.3d 16 (1st Cir. 2006) (municipal liability requires the policy or custom to be the moving force)
- Slaven v. Engstrom, 848 F. Supp. 2d 994 (D. Minn. 2012) (due process failures in state proceedings do not necessarily support municipal § 1983 claims when state law and judicial action govern)
- Nelson v. D.C., 928 F. Supp. 2d 210 (D.D.C. 2013) (dismissing municipal liability claim based on conclusory allegations)
- Comeau v. Town of Webster, 881 F. Supp. 2d 177 (D. Mass. 2012) (dismissing municipal liability claim where allegations of policy/custom were formulaic)