Ruiz v. McDonnellRuiz v. McDonnell
- Reporters:
- , , ,
- Before:
- Henry, Holloway, Vanbebber
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
Friedrick C. Haines, Assistant Attorney General, Denver, CO, for Defendants-Appellees Barbara McDonnell and Colorado Department of Human Services, (Ken Salazar, Attorney General, Denver, CO, for Defendants-Appellees Barbara McDonnell and Colorado Department of Human Services, and John Barry, Patrick M. Groom, and Timothy V. Clancy of Witwer, Oldenburg, Barry & Bedingfield, LLP, Greeley, CO, for Defendants-Appellees Victoria Gallegos, and Leroy Gallegos, with him on the brief).
Before HENRY, Circuit Judge, HOLLOWAY, Senior Circuit Judge, and VANBEBBER,
VANBEBBER, Senior District Judge.
Plaintiff-Appellant, Rose Ruiz, filed this action alleging violations of her and her deceased son‘s Fourteenth Amendment substantive due process rights under
I. BACKGROUND
Ms. Ruiz relies on the following facts alleged in her first amended complaint and proposed second amended complaint.1 In
Tender Heart, which received federal funding for its services, was licensed as a “Family Child Care Home” by the CDHS, whose Executive Director at the relevant time was Ms. McDonnell. As part of its licensing process, the CDHS was required to conduct an investigation into Renee and Charles Gallegos‘s fitness as child care providers and to verify that Tender Heart carried valid public liability insurance. Ms. Ruiz alleges in her amended and proposed second amended complaints that the CDHS failed in both regards by neglecting to uncover an extensive history of domestic violence between Renee and Charles Gallegos that Ms. Ruiz contends was available through a simple search of court records, and by failing to discover that Tender Heart did not carry the proper insurance. Ms. Ruiz alleges in her proposed second amended complaint that it was a practice and custom of the agents of the CDHS to neglect conducting the requisite background and insurance checks, and that Ms. McDonnell failed to stop or correct that practice. Both the amended and proposed second amended complaints allege that the Gallegoses’ history of domestic violence and Tender Heart‘s lack of valid public liability insurance were grounds upon which the CDHS should have denied licensing to Tender Heart.
On May 8, 2000, Ms. Ruiz commenced this suit against the State Defendants, the Private Defendants, the Weld County Department of Human Services and its Executive Director, Walter Speckman (collectively referred to as the “County Defendants“), and John Does numbers one through four, all of whom were alleged to be unknown employees of the State and County Defendants.2 Ms. Ruiz based her § 1983 claim on the failure to deny a family child care home license to Tender Heart. Specifically, Ms. Ruiz alleged that the state and federal statutes and regulations governing child care licensing “embody a substantive constitutional right to be free from the deprivation of life and liberty without due process of law under the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution” and that the licensure of Tender Heart after an inadequate, or nonexistent,
On June 23, 2000, the State Defendants filed a motion to dismiss pursuant to
Ms. Ruiz conceded in her response to the motion to dismiss and at an October 19, 2000, hearing on the motion that her claims against the CDHS and Ms. McDonnell, acting in her official capacity, were improper under § 1983. On December 4, 2000, the district court entered an order dismissing Ms. Ruiz‘s § 1983 claim against the State Defendants pursuant to
Ms. Ruiz now appeals the district court‘s order of December 4, 2000, arguing that the district court erred when it concluded that Ms. Ruiz‘s amended complaint failed to sufficiently allege a “danger creation” cause of action under § 1983.
II. DISCUSSION
A. Appellate Jurisdiction
As an initial matter, Defendants-Appellees argue that we lack jurisdiction over this appeal because Ms. Ruiz allegedly failed to properly file her notice of appeal with the district court. Specifically, Defendants Appellees contend that Ms. Ruiz‘s notice of appeal was premature because the district court had not yet adjudicated all claims against all Defendants when Ms. Ruiz filed the notice. According to Defendants Appellees, Ms. Ruiz should have filed a second, timely notice of appeal after the district court entered final judgment. We disagree.
We directly addressed and rejected the same argument as made by Defendants-Appellees in Lewis v. B.F. Goodrich Co., 850 F.2d 641 (10th Cir. 1988) (en banc). In Lewis, we held that a notice of appeal filed before the district court disposes of all claims is nevertheless effective if the appellant obtains either certification pursuant to
Here, the district court issued an order on December 4, 2000, dismissing without prejudice all Defendants except for Renee Gallegos. Ms. Ruiz filed her notice of appeal on January 5, 2001. Because the district court had not yet adjudicated
B. Eleventh Amendment Immunity
Defendants Appellees next argue that the CDHS and Ms. McDonnell, to the extent that a claim has been asserted against her in her “official capacity,” are entitled to Eleventh Amendment immunity. Although the State Defendants raised this argument in their motion to dismiss, the district court declined to address it. Because an assertion of Eleventh Amendment immunity concerns the subject matter jurisdiction of the district court, we address that issue before turning to the merits of the case. Thompson v. Colorado, 278 F.3d 1020, 1023-24 (10th Cir. 2001) (citations omitted).
The State Defendants raised the Eleventh Amendment immunity defense pursuant to
With certain limited exceptions, the Eleventh Amendment prohibits a citizen from filing suit against a state in federal court. Sutton v. Utah State Sch. for the Deaf & Blind, 173 F.3d 1226, 1231-32 (10th Cir. 1999) (citation omitted). To assert Eleventh Amendment immunity, a defendant must qualify as a state or an “arm” of a state. Id. at 1232 (citation omitted). Here, there exists no dispute between the parties that the CDHS qualifies as an “arm” of the state of Colorado. Ruiz alleges in her amended complaints that “[t]he Colorado State Department of Human Services is a part of the Colorado State Government responsible for administration of Federal programs to provide family and child care services to the needy.”
In addition, to the extent that a claim has been asserted against Ms. McDonnell in her “official capacity,” she may also assert Eleventh Amendment immunity as an “arm” of the state in that she assumes the identity of the CDHS. Hafer v. Melo, 502 U.S. 21, 25 (1991), 112 S. Ct. 358, 116 L. Ed. 2d 301 (1991) (citations omitted) (explaining that a state official sued in his or her “official capacity” is generally entitled to assert the same immunities as the governmental entity for which he or she works). We recognize, of course, that a state official like Ms. McDonnell might not be protected by Eleventh Amendment immunity in a case where the plaintiff seeks prospective injunctive relief as a remedy. Thompson, 278 F.3d at 1024 (citing Seminole Tribe v. Florida, 517 U.S. 44, 73 (1996), 116 S. Ct. 1114, 134 L. Ed. 2d 252 (1996), and Ex parte Young, 209 U.S. 123, 159-60 (1908), 28 S. Ct. 441, 52 L. Ed. 714 (1908)). Because Ms. Ruiz seeks no such relief in this case, the exception does not apply.
We have recognized two primary circumstances in which a citizen may sue a state without offending Eleventh Amendment immunity. Congress may abrogate a state‘s Eleventh Amendment immunity. Thompson, 278 F.3d at 1025 (citing Seminole Tribe, 517 U.S. at 55). A state may also waive its Eleventh Amendment immunity and consent to be sued. Id. at 1024 (citing Idaho v. Coeur d‘Alene, 521 U.S. 261, 267 (1997), 117 S. Ct. 2028, 138 L. Ed. 2d 438 (1997)). Neither exception applies in this case.
First, the United States Supreme Court has previously held that Congress did not abrogate states’ Eleventh Amendment immunity when it enacted
C. Section 1983 Claim
Finally, Defendants-Appellees argue that: (1) Ms. Ruiz‘s § 1983 claim is barred with respect to the CDHS and Ms. McDonnell, acting in her “official capacity,” because neither qualifies as a “person” within the meaning of § 1983; and (2) Ms. Ruiz‘s amended complaints fail to properly allege a “danger creation” cause of action against the State Defendants under § 1983. The State Defendants advanced both arguments in their motion to dismiss pursuant to
We review de novo the district court‘s dismissal under
1. “Persons” Under § 1983
In Will v. Michigan Department of State Police, the United States
2. “Danger Creation” Cause of Action Under § 1983
The Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution provides that no state shall “deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.”
Generally, state actors may only be held liable under § 1983 for their own acts, and not for the violent acts of third parties. DeShaney v. Winnebago County Dep‘t of Soc. Servs., 489 U.S. 189, 197 (1989), 109 S. Ct. 998, 103 L. Ed. 2d 249 (1989) (“As a general matter, then, we conclude that a State‘s failure to protect an individual against private violence simply does not constitute a violation of the Due Process Clause.“). We have recognized two exceptions to this general rule: (1) the “special relationship” exception; and (2) the “danger creation” exception. Armijo v. Wagon Mound Pub. Schs., 159 F.3d 1253, 1260 (10th Cir. 1998) (quoting Liebson v. New Mexico Corr. Dep‘t, 73 F.3d 274, 276 (10th Cir. 1996)). Under the “special relationship” exception, liability may attach to a state actor for the violence of a third party if the state restrained the plaintiff‘s personal liberty and that restraint hindered the plaintiff‘s freedom to act to protect himself from the third party. Id. at 1261. Under the “danger creation” exception, a state actor may be held liable for the violent acts of a third party if the state actor “created the danger” that caused the harm. Id. at 1262 (citation omitted). The district court in this case analyzed Ms. Ruiz‘s claim under both exceptions and concluded that Ms. Ruiz failed to state a claim under either. Ms. Ruiz now contends that the district court erred in concluding that she failed to state a claim under the “danger creation” exception.4
To state a prima facie case under the “danger creation” exception, a plaintiff must show that: (1) the charged state actors created the danger or increased the plaintiff‘s vulnerability to the danger in some way; (2) the plaintiff was a
First, Ms. Ruiz has alleged no facts in her amended or proposed second amended complaints that demonstrate affirmative conduct on the part of the State Defendants that created or increased the danger to J.R. Affirmative conduct for purposes of § 1983 should typically involve conduct that imposes an immediate threat of harm, which by its nature has a limited range and duration. Id. (quoting Dorothy J. v. Little Rock Sch. Dist., 7 F.3d 729, 733 n. 4 (8th Cir. 1993)) (holding that a school district‘s enrollment of an aggressive student in public school does not constitute the requisite affirmative conduct necessary to maintain a § 1983 claim for injuries inflicted by the student because the risk posed by mere enrollment is indefinite). Moreover, the conduct should be directed at a discrete plaintiff rather than at the public at large. Mark v. Borough of Hatboro, 51 F.3d 1137, 1153 (3d Cir. 1995) (holding that the plaintiff, whose home was deliberately burned by a volunteer firefighter, could not maintain a § 1983 claim on the sole basis that the fire department failed to properly screen firefighter applicants because the department‘s conduct affected the public at large and was not directed at the plaintiff).
Here, the crux of Ms. Ruiz‘s claim is that J.R. suffered injuries of constitutional proportions because the State Defendants improperly licensed Tender Heart after failing to conduct an investigation into the facility. However, we do not view the mere licensure of Tender Heart as constituting the requisite affirmative conduct necessary to state a viable § 1983 claim. Specifically, the improper licensure did not impose an immediate threat of harm. Rather, it presented a threat of an indefinite range and duration. Moreover, the licensure affected the public at large; it was not aimed at J.R. or Ms. Ruiz directly. Unlike the direct placement of a child into an abusive home, the mere licensure of Tender Heart was not an act directed at J.R. which, in and of itself, placed J.R. in danger. For those reasons, we conclude that Ms. Ruiz has failed to allege any affirmative conduct on the part of the State Defendants that created or increased the danger to J.R.
Second, even if we were to hold that Ms. Ruiz had alleged affirmative conduct on the part of the State Defendants, we cannot conclude that the conduct alleged “shocks the conscience.” As noted, the ultimate standard for evaluating a substantive due process claim is whether the challenged government action “shocks the conscience” of federal judges.5 Uhlrig v. Harder, 64 F.3d 567, 573 (10th Cir. 1995)
While we deeply sympathize with Ms. Ruiz in the tragic death of her son, we cannot conclude that the State Defendants’ conduct in this case was so “egregious, outrageous or fraught with unreasonable risk” as to “shock the conscience.” See Liebson, 73 F.3d at 277. Taking all of Ms. Ruiz‘s allegations as true, as we must, we do not believe that the State Defendants’ failure to conduct the requisite background and insurance checks rises above the level of negligence. Because negligent acts are insufficient to sustain a substantive due process claim under § 1983, we conclude that the district court properly granted the State Defendants’ motion to dismiss.
In reaching this conclusion, we have considered Ms. Ruiz‘s argument that we should find the State Defendants’ conduct “conscience shocking” because, according to Ms. Ruiz: (1) “there is no remedy in state tort law[] for this incident as Tender Heart Day Care satisfied the public insurance requirement with a homeowner[‘]s policy that did not offer cover[age] for any operation of the day care business;” and (2) the State Defendants’ alleged practice of not conducting background and insurance checks is not entitled to judicial deference. We are not persuaded that either of these factors tips the balance in favor of finding the State Defendants’ conduct “conscience shocking.” First, we note that Tender Heart‘s failure to carry the proper public liability insurance has no bearing on Ms. Ruiz‘s ability to file suit against any of the Defendants under state tort law. At most, the Private Defendants’ failure to carry the proper insurance affects only the question of who would ultimately be responsible for paying any judgment that Ms. Ruiz might obtain against the Private Defendants.6 Second, although we agree
We have also considered Ms. Ruiz‘s reliance on Currier v. Doran, 242 F.3d 905 (10th Cir. 2001), to support her argument that the State Defendants’ conduct “shocks the conscience.” We believe, however, that the facts of Currier are distinguishable from the facts of this case. In Currier, the state granted physical, and eventually legal, custody of two young children to the children‘s father. 242 F.3d at 909-10. Prior to the state granting physical custody to the father, a state social worker assigned to the case became aware of the father‘s history of financial irresponsibility with respect to the children, including making only eight child support payments in the previous three years. Id. at 909. Despite this knowledge, the social worker said nothing to the Children‘s Court during the hearing at which physical custody was awarded to the father. Id. Later, but prior to the father gaining legal custody of the children, the same social worker noticed bruises on the children on at least two occasions while the children were in the physical custody of the father, and was informed on at least three other occasions that the children‘s father and/or the father‘s girlfriend were allegedly abusing the children. Id. at 909-10, 919. Despite these indications of abuse, the social worker failed to launch any investigation and ultimately, through either his affirmative recommendation or his silence with respect to the indications of abuse, was responsible for the father obtaining legal custody of the children. Id. The father later killed one of the children by scalding him with boiling water. Id. at 910. Representatives of the children filed suit under § 1983, alleging that the social worker violated the children‘s Fourteenth Amendment substantive due process rights by creating the danger of the harm suffered by the children. Id. at 908, 919-20. We held that the plaintiffs had alleged facts sufficient to show that the social worker‘s conduct “shocked the conscience.” Id. at 920.
Ms. Ruiz now urges us to construe our holding in Currier to mean that “a state actor‘s failure to adequately investigate a child‘s private placement by authorizing placement with a person who ultimately harmed the child is actionable and satisfies the shocks the conscience standard.” We disagree. Our holding in Currier is simply not that far-reaching. The conduct by the social worker in Currier, given the father‘s history of financial irresponsibility with respect to the children and the numerous specific indications of abuse of the children by the father and/or his girlfriend, was of a different degree and type of culpability than the State Defendants’ alleged failure to conduct background and insurance checks on the family child care home license applicants in this case. The conduct of the State Defendants in this case did not involve the direct placement of a child in the hands of an abuser; it merely involved the licensure of a facility. While we find that the State Defendants’ actions might have risen to the level of negligence, we do not consider them to be “conscience-shocking.”
Defendants-Appellees do not request that we consider the State Defendants’ qualified immunity argument on appeal, and because we have already concluded that Ms. Ruiz‘s § 1983 claim fails to assert a violation of federal constitutional law, we agree that we need not do so. See id. at 917 (citations omitted) (stating that before the court examines whether a defendant is entitled to qualified immunity, it must first determine whether the plaintiff has asserted a violation of federal law).
AFFIRMED.