Vania Minor, Individually and as Mother, Natural Guardian and Next Best Friend of D.A. v. State of Iowa, Becky Grabe, Individually and Cleo Hester, Individually
819 N.W.2d 383
| Iowa | 2012Background
- D.A. was removed from Minor’s custody via a DHS-initiated CINA petition after social worker Grabe obtained information about Minor and D.A.
- Grabe’s affidavits accompanied the CINA petition and a later affidavit sought temporary DHS custody; a county attorney filed the petition.
- D.A. was placed with Techau, a licensed foster parent, then later with Stutzman after a home study; placement concerns arose regarding care and health.
- D.A. contracted an E. coli urinary tract infection during Techau’s care; Minor raised concerns about the foster care quality and requested a home study of Stutzman’s residence.
- In August the CINA case was dismissed; Minor and D.A. sued the State and DHS employees under §1983 and ITCA, asserting various constitutional and tort claims.
- The district court granted summary judgment on immunity grounds, leading to appeal to the Iowa Supreme Court.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Grabe's initiation of CINA action and petition filing | Grabe acted as a prosecutor; filed the petition based on coerced/misleading info. | Grabe acted with prosecutorial functions; enjoys absolute immunity for petition filing. | Grabe entitled to absolute immunity for referral and petition filing. |
| Grabe's affidavits as a complaining witness | Affidavits contained or relied on falsified information to remove D.A. | Affidavits were part of a prosecutorial/witness function; immunity applies variably. | Grabe not absolutely immune for filing affidavits as a complaining witness; qualified immunity applies for investigatory acts and filing as a witness. |
| Hester's immunity for placement-related conduct | Hester failed to timely conduct home study and protect D.A.; caused harm. | Hester’s actions were protected by immunity if within a prosecutorial/witness-like role. | Hester is not entitled to absolute immunity; qualified immunity applies for his acts. |
| ITCA exhaustion and jurisdiction for state tort claims | State tort claims should proceed; exhaustion satisfied by filing with ITCA board. | State appeal board exclusive jurisdiction; claims improperly brought in district court. | Court lacked jurisdiction to hear state tort claims against Hester; dismissal affirmed due to exhaustion rule. |
| Misrepresentation/deceit exception under 669.14(4) | Grabe’s alleged deceit/ex torts fit within 669.14(4); immunity should not apply. | Claims are within the misrepresentation/deceit exception and barred from ITCA relief. | Grabe’s basis for tort claims falls within 669.14(4)’s deceit/misrepresentation exception; ITCA immunity applies. |
Key Cases Cited
- Buckley v. Fitzsimmons, 509 U.S. 259 (1993) (absolute immunity for prosecutorial functions include initiating and presenting in court)
- Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U.S. 409 (1976) (prosecutorial immunity for activities intimately associated with the judicial process)
- Kalina v. Fletcher, 522 U.S. 118 (1997) (no absolute immunity for sworn affidavits filed to obtain warrants; complaining witness distinction)
- Briscoe v. LaHue, 460 U.S. 325 (1983) (ordinary witness immunity for testimony; extends to certain affidavit contexts)
- Burns v. Reed, 500 U.S. 478 (1991) (protects prosecutors from liability; strictnes of functional immunity)
- Thomason v. SCAN Volunteer Servs., Inc., 85 F.3d 1365 (8th Cir. 1996) (social workers’ immunity when acting in prosecutorial/advisory court roles)