Richardson et al v. Idaho Department of Health and Welfare et al

Filing 91

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER granting in part and denying in part 88 Motion to Dismiss. Signed by Judge B. Lynn Winmill. (caused to be mailed to non Registered Participants at the addresses listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF) by (st)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF IDAHO
SAMANTHA RICHARDSON, the
natural mother of decedent KARINA
MOORE; AALIYAH MOORE, sibling
of decedent KARINA MOORE;
SHAWN MOORE, sibling of decedent
KARINA MOORE; and KARIN
ROGERS, the maternal grandmother of
KARINA MOORE; and the estate of
KARINA MOORE,

Plaintiffs,
v.
The IDAHO DEPARTMENT OF
HEALTH AND WELFARE, a political
subdivision of the state of Idaho;
STACEY WHITE, personally and in her
official capacity; JENNIFER DUNCAN,
personally and in her official capacity;
JEREMY M. CLARK and AMBER M.
CLARK and the marital community;
John Doe 1 and John Doe 2 and others to
be named hereafter; and the real property
located at: 1605 E. 2nd Avenue, Post
Falls, Idaho, legally described as:
Lot 3 Block 6, RIVERVIEW PARK
ADDITION AT POST FALLS,
Kootenai County, State of Idaho,
according to the plat recorded in
Book “D” of Plats, Page 161, records of
Kootenai County, Idaho.,
Defendants.

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - 1

Case No. 2:10-cv-00648-BLW
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND
ORDER

INTRODUCTION
Minor child, K.M., died from a series of blunt force blows to her head while in the
care of her foster parents, Defendants Jeremy M. Clark and Amber M. Clark. Am. Compl.
¶ 6, Dkt. 54. Plaintiff Samantha Richardson, K.M.'s mother, claims that she complained
to Defendants Stacy White and Jennifer Duncan, both social workers employed by the
Idaho Department of Health and Welfare, that K.M. had sustained injuries while under
the foster care of the Clarks. Id. ¶ 4. Richardson maintains that both White and Duncan
did nothing in response to her complaints. Now, K.M.'s family, the plaintiffs in this
action, claim that White and Duncan are responsible for K.M.'s death.
White and Duncan have moved to dismiss Plaintiffs’ claims. They argue that the
Eleventh Amendment bars the claims against them in their official capacities, and the
doctrine of qualified immunity immunizes them from suit in their personal capacities
because Plaintiffs have failed to set forth facts suggesting that White and Duncan’s
conduct violated a clearly-established constitutional right. For the reasons set forth below
the Court will grant the motion with respect to the claims against White and Duncan in
their official capacities, but will deny the motion with respect to the claims against White
and Duncan in their individual capacities.
ANALYSIS
1.

Official Capacity
“[S]uits against state officials in their official capacity are no different from suits

against the state itself.” Krainski v. Nevada, 616 F.3d 963, 968 (9th Cir. 2010). The
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - 2

Eleventh Amendment creates a jurisdictional bar to private damages actions against states
in federal court.” Leer v. Murphy, 844 F.2d 628, 631 (9th Cir. 1988).
Few rules are without exceptions, however, and a state may waive its sovereign
immunity. Edelman v. Jordan, 415 U.S. 651, 663 (1974). But the waiver must be explicit:
“we will find waiver only where stated ‘by the most express language or by such
overwhelming implications from the text as (will) leave no room for any other reasonable
construction.” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted). And the state of Idaho has not
waived sovereign immunity for state or federal constitutional violations. Id. See also
Hickman v. Idaho State Sch. & Hosp., 339 F.Supp. 463 (D.Idaho 1972). Therefore, the
claims against White and Duncan in their official capacities must be dismissed.
2. Individual Capacity
White and Duncan argue that the claims against them in their individual capacities
should also be dismissed based on qualified immunity.
The defense of qualified immunity completely protects government officials
performing discretionary functions from suit in their individual capacities unless their
conduct violates “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a
reasonable person would have known.” Hope v. Pelzer, 536 U.S. 730, 731 (2002). In
order to hurdle a defendant’s claim of qualified immunity, a plaintiff must satisfy a twopart test. Saucier v. Katz, 533 U.S. 194, 201(2001). First, the Court must consider
whether the plaintiff's allegations, taken as true, establish a constitutional violation. Id.

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - 3

Secondly, if such allegations do establish a constitutional violation, the Court must
determine whether the right was clearly established. Id. at 202.
Here, White and Duncan argue that Plaintiffs have failed to articulate a deprivation of
a clearly-established constitutional right. Not so. Plaintiffs allege in their Amended
Complaint that “Defendants have denied Plaintiffs’ federally protected rights guaranteed
under the 5th and 14th Amendments of the Constitution of the United States and that
Defendants’ willful and malicious conduct has caused the deprivation of those federally
guaranteed rights of substantive due process.” Am. Compl. ¶ 20, Dkt. 54. “The
Fourteenth Amendment substantive due process clause protects a foster child's liberty
interest in social worker supervision and protection from harm inflicted by a foster
parent.” Tamas v. Department of Social & Health Services, 630 F.3d 833, 842 (9th Cir.
2010) . “This right was clearly established at the time of K.M’s death. Id. at 846 (“[W]e
conclude that it was clearly established in 1996 that Appellees had a protected liberty
interest in safe foster care placement once they became wards of the state.”).
Accordingly, the Court will deny White and Duncan’s motion to dismiss the claims
against them in their individual capacities based on their argument that Plaintiffs have
failed to identify a clearly-established right. White and Duncan made no other arguments
in support of the motion to dismiss the claims against them in their individual capacities.
For example, White and Duncan did not argue that Plaintiffs have failed to establish an
actual constitutional violation. Any unaddressed issues remain open, and White and
Duncan may renew their qualified-immunity arguments at the summary-judgment stage.
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - 4

ORDER
O
T
ERED that Defendant Stacy Wh and Jen
t
ts
hite
nnifer Dunc
can’s Motio to
on
IT IS ORDE
Dismiss (Dkt. 88) is GRANTE in part and DENIED in part.
ED
a

DAT
TED: Marc 31, 2015
ch

__________
__________
_____
___
B. L
Lynn Winm
mill
Chief Judge
ited
District Cou
urt
Uni States D

MEMORA
ANDUM DECIS
SION AND ORDER - 5
R