Webb v. Department of Human Services
6:11-cv-00134
E.D. Okla.Jan 3, 2012Background
- Plaintiff Webb, proceeding pro se, sues multiple Oklahoma entities and Judge Powers for alleged rights violations related to the October 29, 2008 removal of his daughter.
- The child removal occurred via an emergency order based on Webb’s status as a registered sex offender, with continuance of custody in Bryan County District Court proceedings.
- Defendants include Choctaw Nation Tribal Complex, DHS, Bryan County DA’s Office, Probation and Parole, Judge Powers, and others; the court treats actions under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for monetary and equitable relief.
- Defendants move to dismiss; Webb seeks punitive, treble, declaratory and injunctive relief to re-establish contact with his wife and daughter.
- The court liberally construes pro se pleadings but finds the complaint fails to state viable § 1983 claims against any defendant.
- The court grants motions to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction or immunity and dismisses Webb’s complaint with prejudice.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Choctaw Nation Tribal Complex is subject to suit | Webb contends the Complex violated his rights and seeks relief. | Choctaw Nation Tribal Complex enjoys sovereign immunity; lacks jurisdiction. | GRANTED; immunity defeats jurisdiction; dismissal with prejudice. |
| Whether Bryan County DA's Office defendants have prosecutorial immunity | Webb alleges conspiracy to remove and endanger rights. | Prosecutors have absolute immunity for prosecutorial functions. | GRANTED; claims dismissed with prejudice under 12(b)(6). |
| Whether DHS is immune under Eleventh Amendment | DHS conspired to deprive rights and endanger the child. | DHS, as a state agency, is immune from § 1983 suits. | GRANTED; Eleventh Amendment immunity precludes claims; dismissal with prejudice. |
| Whether the Probation and Parole Office is immune under Eleventh Amendment | The Office participated in alleged rights violations. | State agency immune from suit under the Eleventh Amendment. | GRANTED; dismissal with prejudice. |
| Whether Judge Powers is immune from suit and whether declaratory/injunctive relief is available | Judge Powers deprived him of contact with family; seeks relief. | Judicial immunity bars claims; declaratory/injunctive relief directed at DHS/Judge Powers must be evaluated. | GRANTED for claims against Powers under judicial immunity; declaratory/injunctive relief denied; overall dismissal. |
Key Cases Cited
- Berrey v. Asarco, Inc., 439 F.3d 636 (10th Cir.2006) (immunity considerations and related standards)
- Kiowa Tribe of Oklahoma v. Manufacturing Technologies, Inc., 523 U.S. 751 (Supreme Court 1998) (tribal immunity framework; abrogation/waiver requirements)
- Puyallup Tribe, Inc. v. Department of Game, 433 U.S. 165 (Supreme Court 1977) (tribal sovereignty and immunity principles)
- Native American Distributing v. Seneca-Cayuga Tobacco Co., 546 F.3d 1288 (10th Cir.2008) (tribal immunity and related jurisdictional issues)
- Seneca-Cayuga Tobacco Co. v. State of Oklahoma, 546 F.3d 1292 (10th Cir.2008) (statutory/constitutional immunity discussion)
- Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U.S. 409 (Supreme Court 1976) (absolute prosecutorial immunity)
- Muscogee (Creek) Nation v. Oklahoma Tax Comm'n, 611 F.3d 1222 (10th Cir.2010) (Eleventh Amendment and immunity considerations)
- Green v. Mansour, 474 U.S. 64 (Supreme Court 1985) (state immunity and related waivers)
- Quern v. Jordan, 440 U.S. 332 (Supreme Court 1979) (abrogation/waiver and sovereign immunity concepts)
- Will v. Michigan Dept. of State Police, 491 U.S. 58 (Supreme Court 1989) (constitutional immunities in § 1983 context)
- Steffel v. Thompson, 415 U.S. 452 (Supreme Court 1974) (preliminary injunction standards and related considerations)
- PJ ex rel. Jensen v. Wagner, 603 F.3d 1182 (10th Cir.2010) (due process and family rights considerations)