DEL A., et al., Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. Edwin EDWARDS, Individually and as Governor of the State of Louisiana, et al., Defendants-Appellants.
No. 88-3154.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Sept. 28, 1988.
Applying the periods of limitation, we are left with no uncertainty. The fraudulent misrepresentation claim is barred even assuming that the Rutherfords were reasonably diligent to the present day. Appellants state unequivocally in their briefs that they “discover[ed] Exxon‘s misrepresentations as to existing facts” in 1982, when they consulted their attorney. Their awareness, and the filing of their first suit, came to pass well over two years before this suit was filed on November 7, 1985. At oral argument, counsel for the Rutherfords even conceded that the two year statute of limitations had passed. In any event, Appellants meet with no more success when we apply the four year period of limitations. They sued on November 7, 1985. Because the damages claim and the rescission claim accrued no later than February, 1980, the Rutherfords filed their claims well over a year late.
CONCLUSION
The Hawkins Field unitization agreement, and the relationships which revolve around it, are creatures of modern jurisprudence. But ancient doctrines of the common law apply here with unexceptional force. Before the clerk‘s stamp made its mark, the sands of the hourglass had settled peacefully. The claims before us are time-barred, and the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.3
William A. Guste, Jr., Atty. Gen., Dept. of Justice, David A. Dalia, Asst. Atty. Gen., Emile W. Schneider, Mary Beck Widmann, Section Chief, Office of Gen. Counsel, Lemann, O‘Hara, Miles & White, Arthur A. Lemann, III, New Orleans, La., for defendants-appellants.
Steven Scheckman, ACLU of La., Ann Maclaine, Mark A. Moreau, New Orleans Legal Assistance Corp., New Orleans, La., Christopher A. Hansen, ACLU, Christopher T. Dunn, Marcia Robinson Lowry, New York City, for plaintiffs-appellees.
THORNBERRY, Circuit Judge:
This appeal questions the district court‘s conclusion that the individual defendants in this case are not entitled to qualified immunity from this
I.
In 1980, Congress amended portions of the Aid to Families with Dependent Children program in Title IV-A of the
A case plan is defined in the Act as a written document containing a description of the type of home or institution into which the child is placed, the appropriateness of the placement, and how the state plans to carry out the placement of the child.
The Act defines the required case review system as a procedure for assuring that each child‘s case plan is designed to place the child in the “least restrictive (most family like) setting available and in close proximity to the parents’ home.”
The Child Welfare Act also requires that after October 15, 1983, the state must make “reasonable efforts” to prevent the
The plaintiffs in this case are 15 children who have been or are at risk of being taken involuntarily into custody by the Louisiana Department of Health and Human Resources (DHHR) as foster children.1 In their complaint, the plaintiffs allege that the defendants—various Louisiana state officials sued in their individual and official capacities—violated various provisions of the Child Welfare Act as well as various provisions of the United States Constitution. The suit seeks damages for the named plaintiffs under
The individual defendants raised the defense of qualified immunity from damages and moved to dismiss the complaint or, in the alternative, for summary judgment. The motion stated that (1) the Child Welfare Act did not create substantive rights enforceable under
II.
In Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800 (1982), the Supreme Court held that government officials performing discretionary functions are immune from civil damages for conduct that does not violate clearly established constitutional or statutory rights. The Court also said that this immunity is one “from suit rather than a mere defense to liability....” Mitchell, 105 S.Ct. at 2816 (emphasis deleted). It is this characteristic—immunity from suit—that justifies immediate appeal of the denial of qualified immunity, for requiring officials to wait until after trial for review would effectively destroy this aspect of the immunity. See Mitchell; Sorey v. Kellett, 849 F.2d 960, 961 (5th Cir.1988).
Because qualified immunity is designed to protect discretionary functions of officials, it is not available when the official acts in such a way that it is clear that the actions will violate a person‘s rights. When the law is unclear, however, the official does require protection so that fear of suit will not cloud the decision-making process. Thus, the Supreme Court has held that the proper focus of our review on the question of qualified immunity should be whether the alleged conduct violated “legal principals that were ‘clearly established’ ” at the time. Anderson v. Creighton, 483 U.S. 635 (1987).
The Supreme Court has provided us with a framework in which we are to determine whether rights are clearly established. See id. To illustrate the framework, the Court used as an example the rights supplied by the due process clause. The Court noted that “the right to due process of law is quite clearly established by the Due Process Clause, and thus there is a sense in which any action that violates that Clause (no matter how unclear it may be that the particular action is a violation) violates a clearly established right.” Id. It concluded, however, that such a broad definition of “clearly established” would defeat the policy behind qualified immunity—shielding officials from suit for the exercise of discretion in circumstances in which “their actions could reasonably have been thought consistent with the [plaintiff‘s] rights....” Id.
To achieve the proper scope for the immunity, the Court focused on the application of the right to the particular circumstances faced by the official at the time of the exercise of discretion. The Court said:
The contours of the right must be sufficiently clear that a reasonable official would understand that what he is doing violates that right. This is not to say that an official action is protected by qualified immunity unless the very action in question has been previously held unlawful; but it is to say that in the light of preexisting law the unlawfulness must be apparent.
Id. (emphasis added) (citations omitted). By particularizing qualified immunity to the facts of the case, the Court was able to protect officials in those many situations in which it is unreasonable to expect an official to know with complete certainty whether his actions will be unlawful. This method, however, also enabled the Court to remove the protection in cases in which the official should know that the proposed action would violate someone‘s rights.
In this case, then, to decide whether the defendants are entitled to qualified immunity, we must determine whether an objectively reasonable official would understand that the alleged improper actions were unlawful. If so, these defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity.
III.
The officials first argue that the Child Welfare Act does not create substantive rights enforceable under
As stated, qualified immunity exists to promote the integrity of the decision-making process for officials engaged in discre
As a consequence, the Supreme Court‘s tests for qualified immunity naturally focus on the conduct of the reasonable official in light of the asserted right and the particular circumstances. The ultimate test is whether “a reasonable official would understand that what he is doing violates that right.” Anderson v. Creighton, 483 U.S. at 640. The test is not whether a reasonable official would understand that he ultimately faces possible liability. Under the latter test, an official would be accorded decision making protection not only when the right is not clearly established, but also when the right is clearly established but the question of whether the individual has a private right of action for damages is unclear. Such broad protection is unnecessary to protect the integrity of the decision-making process; if the right is clearly established so that a reasonable official would understand how the law requires him to act, the official will know what to do to avoid possible liability.
We conclude, therefore, that the issues of whether the Child Welfare Act creates substantive rights enforceable under Section 1983 and whether if a private Section 1983 right of action exists, the right is limited to injunctive relief are not directly relevant to the question of qualified immunity. These issues implicate whether the officials will ultimately face liability for their actions, not whether the officials could understand that their actions violated the Child Welfare Act. Thus, we are not required to address these issues on this appeal.
While we might have the discretion to assume pendent appellate jurisdiction over these issues, see San Filippo v. U.S. Trust Co., 737 F.2d 246, 255 (2d Cir.1984), we feel in this case that the more prudent course would be to follow the usual procedure of waiting until after a final decision in the district court. Depending on the disposition in the district court, it might become unnecessary to address these issues at all.
Thus, we now turn to the only directly relevant issue—whether the officials in this case should have understood that their alleged actions violated the Child Welfare Act.
IV.
In determining whether these officials should have understood that their actions violated the Child Welfare Act, we must examine their actions as alleged in the complaint2 in light of the specific provisions of the Act.
Second, the complaint alleges that the defendants, when they developed case plans, violated the requirement that the plans assure “the permanent placement of the child.”
Third, the complaint alleges that the defendants have violated protections, other than the case plans and case reviews, required by the Act. The Act requires that the case plan be designed to place the child in the “least restrictive (most family like) setting available and in close proximity to the parents’ home, consistent with the best interest and special needs of the child.”
Fourth, the complaint alleges that the defendants violated the provision requiring that after October 1, 1983, reasonable efforts be made prior to the placement of a child in foster care to prevent or eliminate the need for removal of the child from his home and to make it possible for the return of a child to his home. The complaint alleges that several of the children were placed after this effective date, but that no reasonable efforts were made to return them home even though some of the parents were able or could have been able to take them home with only minimal help.
Finally, the complaint alleges that although the Act requires the state to conduct an inventory of all foster children and establish and operate an information system to track certain information about the children,
Overall, the complaint alleges wholesale neglect by these officials in following the dictates of the Child Welfare Act. Many of the allegedly neglected requirements are obviously clearly established in a particularized sense. Any reasonable person would know, for example, when to develop a plan, when to review the plan, when to hold a hearing, what elements to include in the case plans, and that an information system must be developed. Moreover, as the Fourth Circuit found in a very recent case, the requirements calling for case plans, case review systems, proper care (as specifically defined in the Act) and the maintenance of standards reasonably in accord with those of national organizations “spell out a standard of conduct, and as a corollary rights in the plaintiffs” sufficient to defeat qualified immunity. See L.J. ex rel. Darr v. Massinga, 838 F.2d 118, 123 (4th Cir.1988), petition for cert. filed, 56 U.S.L.W. 3769 (U.S. May 2, 1988) (No. 87-1796). The complaint basically alleges that in many cases no attempt was made to follow these provisions of the Child Welfare Act. No reasonable official could have believed that such inaction was lawful. For this reason, we find that these defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity from this complaint.
V.
The complaint also says that the defendants violated three allegedly clearly established constitutional rights: (1) when a state takes a person into custody, the due process clause requires that the state not injure that person; (2) when the state deprives a person of liberty for noncriminal reasons, the state must place that person in the least restrictive, appropriate setting; and (3) when the state deprives a person of statutorily created property or liberty interests, it must do so in accordance with due process of law.
At this time, however, we need not decide whether these general rights are clearly established in the particular circumstances alleged. See Massinga, 838 F.2d at 122. Federal courts are to avoid addressing constitutional questions when possible. See Ashwander v. Tennessee Valley Authority, 297 U.S. 288, 347 (1936) (Brandeis, J., concurring). Allowing interlocutory appeals on qualified immunity effectuates the policy of allowing officials to avoid litigation when they have unwittingly violated the law. In this case, however, we have already determined that further litigation is necessary on the statutory claims. Deciding the constitutional questions at this point, therefore, would not relieve the officials of the litigation burden. Further proceedings in the district court could avoid the need for a decision on these issues, and we therefore decline to address them now.
VI.
For the reasons expressed in this opinion, we hold that the district court properly denied the motion to dismiss or for summary judgment on the issue of qualified immunity. Therefore, the order of the district court is AFFIRMED.
JERRY E. SMITH
Circuit Judge, dissenting