Van Zee v. Hanson
2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 859
| 8th Cir. | 2011Background
- Van Zee sued Hanson under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging a Fourteenth Amendment privacy violation for disclosing his juvenile records to an Army recruiter.
- The district court dismissed for failure to state a claim; the Eighth Circuit affirmed the dismissal on de novo review.
- Van Zee enlisted in the Army in early 2008; the recruiter sent two blank release forms for law enforcement and for probation/court records to state agencies where Van Zee resided.
- The Sixth Judicial District’s Court Services Office informed the Army that Van Zee’s juvenile records could not be disclosed; on July 9, Hanson disclosed the records to the recruiter.
- After disclosure, the recruiter canceled Van Zee’s enlistment; the district court relied on released forms to conclude no legitimate privacy interest existed.
- The court held that Van Zee did not demonstrate a constitutional privacy violation and affirmed the district court’s judgment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Hanson’s disclosure violated the Fourteenth Amendment privacy right. | Van Zee asserts a privacy violation as part of a §1983 claim. | Hanson complied with state policy and Van Zee had no protected privacy interest. | No, the disclosure did not amount to a constitutional privacy violation. |
| Whether Van Zee had a legitimate expectation of privacy in his juvenile records given the release forms. | Argues there was an expectation of confidentiality protected by privacy rights. | There was no legitimate expectation due to the signed release forms and background check context. | No legitimate expectation; disclosure was permissible under the circumstances. |
| Whether the district court’s reliance on unproduced release forms converted the Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal into summary judgment. | Contends the court treated materials outside the pleadings as evidence, denying opportunity to respond. | Any error was harmless and Van Zee had notice and opportunity to respond. | Harmless error; nonew material facts altered the outcome. |
| Whether Van Zee had a due process property interest in confidentiality of juvenile records under state law. | Cites state-law protection to argue a property interest in confidentiality. | Waived by requesting disclosure and thus no enforceable property interest. | Not decided in favor of Van Zee; the court found waiver and sidestepped a property-interest determination. |
Key Cases Cited
- Cooksey v. Boyer, 289 F.3d 513 (8th Cir. 2002) (privacy right requires shocking degradation or breach of confidentiality)
- Eagle v. Morgan, 88 F.3d 620 (8th Cir. 1996) (examines material to assess confidentiality expectations)
- Soucie v. County of Monroe, 736 F.Supp. 33 (W.D.N.Y. 1990) (privacy depends on reasonable expectation of privacy)
- Town of Castle Rock v. Gonzales, 545 U.S. 748 (U.S. 2005) (due process property interests defined by state-law understandings)
- Ginsburg v. InBev N.V./S.A., 623 F.3d 1229 (8th Cir. 2010) (affirming judgment despite Rule 12(d) concerns because no cure would fix the flaw)
- Gregory v. Dillard's, Inc., 565 F.3d 464 (8th Cir. 2009) (en banc standard for Rule 12(b)(6) review in context of dismissal)