Tyagi v. Sheldon
1:16-cv-11236
| N.D. Ill. | Sep 18, 2017Background
- Pro se plaintiffs Sanjay Tyagi and Alka Jagatia and their minor son A.T. dispute Lurie Children’s Hospital physicians’ recommendation to use the antiepileptic drug Keppra instead of a ketogenic diet; A.T. experienced multiple seizures including status epilepticus.
- An unnamed Lurie employee referred the family to DCFS for medical neglect; DCFS social workers (Burleson, Rubino, Stephens) investigated and filed a report of indicated medical neglect in the Illinois State Central Register (SCR).
- Plaintiffs appealed administratively; an ALJ (Marco Djurisic) sustained the neglect finding after an evidentiary hearing; the DCFS Director (George Sheldon) adopted the decision; plaintiffs filed this § 1983 suit instead of seeking state-court review.
- Complaint advanced First, Fourth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendment claims and state tort claims; defendants moved to dismiss on pleading, immunity, and failure-to-state-a-claim grounds.
- Court dismissed many defendants and claims but allowed individual-capacity Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment claims (search and familial-association interference) and related intentional infliction of emotional distress and invasion of privacy claims to proceed against social workers Burleson and Rubino.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Whether plaintiffs’ free-exercise/right-to-direct-child-medical-care claim precludes state intervention | Plaintiffs: parents’ right to choose ketogenic diet and refuse Keppra; religious objection requires accommodation | Defendants: state can limit parental/religious choices when child’s health is endangered; administrative finding supports treatment | Dismissed — First Amendment/right-to-direct-medical-care claim fails given administrative finding that diet alone endangered child and Labrenz principle limiting parental/religious practices that risk child’s life |
| 2. Fourth Amendment seizure at hospital (36-hr hold) | Plaintiffs: hospital/DCFS detained A.T. and threatened police to prevent discharge | Defendants: no clearly established right; lack of personal involvement / qualified immunity | Dismissed — plausible seizure but plaintiffs failed to plead clearly established right or personal involvement to overcome qualified immunity |
| 3. Fourth Amendment search and Fourteenth Amendment familial-association claim for home strip-search | Plaintiffs: social workers coerced entry, threatened removal, then inspected children’s bodies without consent | Defendants: dismissal/qualified immunity; generalized allegations insufficient | Survives as to Burleson and Rubino in their individual capacities — search unreasonable and threat to remove interfered with parental rights; qualified immunity denied |
| 4. Searches/interrogation at public school and administrative hearing process (confrontation, procedural due process) | Plaintiffs: A.T. was interviewed/examined at school without parents; subpoenaed Lurie witnesses failed to appear at ALJ hearing denying confrontation rights; procedural errors and evidentiary suppression | Defendants: public-school context lowers expectation of privacy; ALJ/judge immune; prosecutorial/witness immunity; available state remedies | Dismissed — school interrogation/search claims and Sixth Amendment claim dismissed (qualified immunities, not clearly established); procedural due process claims fail because plaintiffs could have sought state-court review and many allegations are conclusory |
Key Cases Cited
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (pleading standard requires plausibility)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (legal conclusions insufficient; plausibility standard)
- Hallinan v. Fraternal Order of Police of Chi. Lodge No. 7, 570 F.3d 811 (Rule 12(b)(6) standard discussion)
- Brokaw v. Mercer Cnty., 235 F.3d 1000 (personal liability under § 1983 and limits on supervisory/respondeat superior liability)
- Doe v. Heck, 327 F.3d 492 (Fourth Amendment and warrant/consent/exigent circumstances in school search context)
- Saucier v. Katz, 533 U.S. 194 (qualified immunity framework)
- Shields v. Illinois Dept. of Corrections, 746 F.3d 782 (Monell/private-corporation § 1983 liability discussion)