Harris v. DCF et al

Filing 38

ORDER granting 32 Motion to Dismiss. Please see attached ruling. Signed by Judge Robert N. Chatigny on 1/12/2015. (Saner, K)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT
MELISSA HARRIS,
Plaintiff,
V.
DCF, et al.,
Defendants.

:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:

Case No. 3:13-cv-119(RNC)

RULING AND ORDER
Plaintiff Melissa Harris, proceeding pro se and in forma
pauperis, brings this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against
the Department of Children and Families ("DCF") and DCF social
workers Erin Hubler, Jessica Ocasio and Regina Steperd alleging
interference with her constitutional right to the custody of her
children.1

The individual defendants have moved to dismiss the

second amended complaint on the ground that it fails to state a
claim on which relief may be granted.

The Court agrees that the

action must be dismissed on this basis.2

1

The claims against DCF were dismissed on May 15, 2013.

2

Defendants argue that subject matter jurisdiction is
lacking but the alleged violation of plaintiff’s constitutional
rights is within the jurisdiction conferred by 28 U.S.C. § 1331.
Defendants also invoke the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, Younger
abstention and 28 U.S.C. § 1257, pointing out that plaintiff is
involved in a child custody case in Superior Court. Joshua
Raymond v. Melissa A. Harris, HHD-FA-12-4060710-S, Family
Division of the Superior Court of Hartford (Feb. 3, 2012). But
plaintiff is not asking this Court to set aside a decision of the
Superior Court and adjudicating her § 1983 claim does not risk
interfering with the state case.
1

The touchstone of an action brought under § 1983 is the
deprivation of a right secured by the Constitution.
Goode, 423 U.S. 362, 370—71 (1976).

Rizzo v.

To state a claim on which

relief may be granted, a plaintiff must allege a "tangible
connection between the acts of the defendants and the injuries
suffered.

Johnson v. Newburgh England Sch. Dist., 239 F.3d 246,

254 (2d Cir. 2001).

Here, plaintiff fails to plead that

defendants Ocasio or Steperd took any action to interfere with
her constitutional rights.

Thus, any allegations against them

are insufficient to state a claim on which relief may be granted
under § 1983.
Plaintiff alleges that defendant Huber arranged to have
plaintiff’s children placed in the custody of a relative after
plaintiff was involuntarily committed at a Hospital.

The Due

Process Clause of the Constitution prevents a parent from being
deprived of the custody of her child without a hearing "at a
meaningful time and in a meaningful manner."
380 U.S. 545, 552 (1965).

Armstrong v. Manzo,

It is well established, however, that

"government officials may remove a child from his or her parents'
custody before a hearing is held where there is an objectively
reasonable basis for believing that a threat to the child's
health or safety is imminent."

Gottlieb v. Cty. of Orange, 84

F.3d 511, 520 (2d Cir. 1996) (citations omitted); see also Dietz
v. Damas, 932 F. Supp. 431, 444 (E.D.N.Y. 1996) ("The law of this

2

Circuit, as well as of other federal courts, is clear that,
constitutionally, no prior hearing is required to remove a child
from parental custody in an emergency situation.").
Huber argues that it was objectively reasonable for her to
believe that placing the children with a relative was justified
under the circumstances alleged here.

The Court agrees.

The

pleadings show that, at the time Huber arrived at the Hospital,
the children were unattended.

Huber advised plaintiff to call

someone to care for the children.

Under these facts, Huber's

conduct was objectively reasonable.

Plaintiff's complaint thus

fails to state a plausible claim that Huber violated her
constitutional rights.
Accordingly, the motion to dismiss (ECF No. 32) is hereby
granted.

The Clerk may close the file.

So ordered this 12th day of January 2015.

/s/ RNC
Robert N. Chatigny, U.S.D.J.

3