Adams v. Collins et al

Filing 6

OPINION AND ORDER re 1 Complaint Referred (42:1983) filed by Carol J. Adams. Signed by Honorable Timothy L. Brooks on August 9, 2016. (tg)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
FAYETTEVILLE DIVISION

PLAINTIFF

CAROL J. ADAMS
v.

Civil No. 5:16-cv-05034

MIRANDA COLLINS, Case Worker,
Department of Human Services (OHS);
LEON DAZ, Case Worker, OHS;
RASHEDA MORRIS, Case Worker,
OHS; and MELINDA McllROY,
DEFENDANTS

Attorney for OHS

OPINION AND ORDER

This is a civil rights case filed by the Plaintiff Carol J. Adams under the provisions
of 42U.S.C. § 1983. Adams proceeds prose and in forma pauperis (IFP). She is currently
incarcerated in the Grimes Unit of the Arkansas Department of Correction.
The Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA) modified the IFP statute, 28U.S.C.§1915,
to require the Court to screen complaints for dismissal under § 1915(e)(2)(B). The Court
must dismiss a complaint, or any portion of it, if it contains claims that: (a) are frivolous or
malicious; (b) fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted; or (c) seek monetary
relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).
I. BACKGROUND

According to the allegations of the Complaint (Doc. 1 ), on December 20, 2013,
Plaintiff willingly placed her minor daughter into the custody of the Department of Human
Services (OHS). Plaintiff asserts that she "was never once asked to provide authorities with
able-bodied caregivers that were/are able to provide for minor child." Id. at p. 4. Plaintiff

-

1

-

contends this failure to allow her to provide a list of able-bodied caregivers was in "direct
violation of the court ordered Ex Parle order and also the Petition for Emergency
Custody/Dependency Neglect." Id.
Plaintiff alleges there was also a clause in the orders that stated that "mental health
care may be ordered for adult and/or juvenile." Id.

She asserts that no mental health care

was ever requested.
A hearing was held on December 26, 2013, at which Plaintiff was present, as was
the paternal grandmother. Despite this, the Ex Parle order was still put in effect. Plaintiff
alleges she has "tried repeatedly to offer family info and asked for any services available."
Id. Plaintiff also alleges the "paternal brothers have tried to reach any one in OHS office.

All defendants are guilty of intentional contempt of court." Id.
As relief, Plaintiff asks this Court to order the OHS and the Defendants to follow the
terms of the Ex Parle Order for Emergency Custody. In particular, she asks that she be
allowed to provide them with information on all maternal and paternal relatives available
to care for her minor daughter.
II. DISCUSSION

Under the PLRA, the Court is obligated to screen a case prior to service of process
being issued. A claim is frivolous when it "lacks an arguable basis either in law or fact."
Neitzke

v.

Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989). A claim fails to state a claim upon which

relief may be granted if it does not allege "enough facts to state a claim to relief that is
plausible on its face." Bell At/. Corp.

v.

Twombly, 550 U.S.544, 570 (2007). H
owever, the

Court bears in mind that when "evaluating whether a prose plaintiff has asserted sufficient
facts to state a claim, we hold 'a prose complaint, however inartfully pleaded, ...to less

-

2

-

stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers."' Jackson
537, 541 (8th Cir. 2014)(quoting Erickson

v.

v.

Nixon, 747 F.3d

Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007)).

The official-capacity claims against OHS officials-Miranda Collins, Leon Daz,
Rasheda Morris, and Melinda Mcilroy-are barred either by sovereign immunity or because
in their official capacities the individuals are not considered to be persons for purposes of
the civil rights statutes.

See Will

v.

Mich. Dept. of State Police, 491 U.S. 58, 71

(1989)("neither a State nor its officials acting in their official capacities are 'persons' under
§ 1983"); Zairael

v.

Harmon, 677 F.3d 353, 355 (8th Cir. 2012)(per curiam)(plaintiff's claim

for damages against state officials in their official capacities barred by sovereign immunity,
as "[s]ection 1983 provides no cause of action against agents of the State acting in their
official capacities"); McLean

v.

Gordon, 548 F.3d 613, 618 (8th Cir. 2008)(district court

erred in failing to grant summary judgment for Missouri Department of Social Services on
§ 1983 claim, as Department was an arm of the State, and "a State is not a 'person'
against whom a § 1983 claim for money damages might be asserted" (citation omitted)).
Moreover, the individual capacity claims are also subject to dismissal. Adams may
not seek redress in federal court for issues related to custody of her daughter. Federal
courts do not have jurisdiction over any "action for which the subject is . . . child custody."
Kahn

v.

Kahn, 21 F.3d 859, 861 (8th Cir. 1994) (citation omitted)(federal courts may also

abstain from exercising jurisdiction over cause of action related to an action for child
custody).
Ill. CONCLUSION
The Complaint fails to state a cognizable claim under § 1983 and is frivolous.

-3-

Therefore, it is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i)-(ii)

�
�

action may be dismissed at any tim
IT IS SO ORDERED this

ue to frivolousness o
ay of August, 201 '.

-

4

-

(IFP

r failure to state a claim).