Van Buren v. Crawford, County of
1:13-cv-14565
| E.D. Mich. | May 29, 2014Background
- On Feb 3, 2012 DHS social workers Craig Sharp and Stacy Sage and officers Somero and Klepadlo went to William Reddie’s apartment pursuant to a petition and a Crawford County circuit court "Order to Take Child(ren) Into Protective Custody" to remove Reddie’s two-year-old son.
- Petition averred smell of marijuana, observation of a marijuana pipe, Reddie’s admission to smoking in the child’s presence, and alleged verbal threats toward an officer.
- During entry Reddie produced a knife; Officer Klepadlo shot and killed him.
- Michelle Van Buren, personal representative of Reddie’s estate, filed an amended complaint asserting nine claims against multiple defendants, adding Sharp and Sage and claims including gross negligence, warrantless entry, due process, §1983 conspiracy, and abuse of process.
- Sharp and Sage moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), asserting absolute and/or qualified immunity; the court considered the petition and the court order attached to the motion as central to the complaint.
- The court dismissed all claims against Sharp and Sage with prejudice: gross negligence (as non-cognizable standalone claim), Fourth Amendment/warrantless-entry, Fourteenth Amendment due process, §1983 conspiracy (all barred by qualified immunity or failure to plead a constitutional violation), and abuse of process (barred by absolute immunity as prosecutorial act).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Absolute immunity for social workers | Sharp/Sage acted improperly but were engaged in judicial/advocacy functions only when filing petition | Social workers are absolutely immune for conduct "intimately associated with the judicial phase," including filing child-protective petitions | Filing the petition was a prosecutorial/judicial function protected by absolute immunity for abuse-of-process claim; but removal-entry functions are not protected by absolute immunity |
| Gross negligence as independent state cause of action | Van Buren alleges gross negligence under Mich. Comp. Laws § 691.1407 against Sharp/Sage | Defendants move to dismiss contending gross negligence is not an independent cause of action | Dismissed: gross negligence is not an independent cause of action under Sixth Circuit precedent |
| Warrantless entry / Fourth Amendment | Entry into apartment was without warrant or consent; thus unconstitutional | Entry was pursuant to a judge-signed Order based on Sharp’s petition; that Order met Fourth Amendment warrant requirements; alternatively qualified immunity applies | Dismissed: the court order satisfied warrant clause requirements; Sharp and Sage entitled to qualified immunity on entry claim |
| Substantive and procedural due process | Removal interfered with Reddie’s parental/family-rights interests and shocked the conscience; procedural protections were lacking | Any deprivation of parental rights would be effected by the juvenile court, not social workers; also no deprivation occurred before Reddie’s death; qualified immunity applies | Dismissed: no plausible due-process violation by Sharp/Sage; qualified immunity applies; Pittman/Kolley principle controls |
| §1983 conspiracy | Defendants agreed to fabricate allegations and deprive Reddie of constitutional rights | No constitutional deprivation plausibly alleged against Sharp/Sage; conspiracy claim cannot stand alone | Dismissed: conspiracy fails because no underlying constitutional violation is pleaded against Sharp/Sage |
| Abuse of process (state law) | Sharp/Sage opened/continued baseless proceedings without investigation | Filing the petition and initiating proceedings is prosecutorial/advocacy conduct entitled to absolute immunity | Dismissed: absolute immunity protects Sharp/Sage from abuse-of-process claim |
Key Cases Cited
- Kovacic v. Cuyahoga Cnty. Dep't of Children & Family Servs., 724 F.3d 687 (6th Cir. 2013) (social workers entitled to absolute immunity when acting as legal advocates; removal is non-advocacy policing function)
- Pittman v. Cuyahoga Cnty. Dep't of Children & Family Servs., 640 F.3d 716 (6th Cir. 2011) (juvenile court, not social worker, is the actor that can deprive family integrity rights; limits substantive due process claims against social workers)
- Bletz v. Gribble, 641 F.3d 743 (6th Cir. 2011) (gross negligence is not an independent cause of action under Michigan law for avoiding governmental immunity)
- Andrews v. Hickman Cnty., Tenn., 700 F.3d 845 (6th Cir. 2012) (social workers may rely on information from law enforcement and are insulated from liability for defective information)
- Kolley v. Adult Protective Servs., 725 F.3d 581 (6th Cir. 2013) (applies Pittman analysis under Michigan law; juvenile court retains ultimate decision-making power)
- Jackson v. Schultz, 429 F.3d 586 (6th Cir. 2005) (qualified immunity can be resolved on pre-answer motion; plaintiff must plead a violation of a clearly established right)
- Ahlers v. Schebil, 188 F.3d 365 (6th Cir. 1999) (eyewitness statements are generally reliable and can justify reasonable belief)
- Peet v. City of Detroit, 502 F.3d 557 (6th Cir. 2007) (eyewitness statements can constitute trustworthy information supporting reasonable belief)
- Baranski v. Fifteen Unknown Agents of Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, 452 F.3d 433 (6th Cir. 2006) (Warrant Clause textual requirements explained)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (pleading standard: factual content must allow plausible inference of liability)
- Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (plausibility pleading standard)