Finnegan et al v. Myers et al
Filing
105
OPINION AND ORDER overruling 92 Objections to the Magistrate Judge's June 5, 2012 Order. Signed by Judge Rudy Lozano on 7/24/12. (smp)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
SOUTH BEND DIVISION
ROMAN FINNEGAN, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
vs.
LAUREL MYERS, et al.,
Defendants.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
NO. 3:08-CV-503
OPINION AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on the Plaintiffs’ Objections
to the Magistrate Judge’s June 5, 2012 Order, filed by Plaintiffs,
Roman Finnegan et al., on June 20, 2012 (DE #92).
set forth below, the objection is OVERRULED.
For the reasons
Moreover, to the
extent that the State Defendants argue in their response (DE #98)
that Johnathon Abair should not have been added as a Plaintiff,
that objection is also OVERRULED.
BACKGROUND
Plaintiffs filed the instant Petition for Review pursuant to
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(a) and 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A),
objecting to the June 5, 2012 order (“Order”) entered by United
States Magistrate Judge Christopher A. Nuechterlein (DE #90).
The
Magistrate’s order granted leave to amend the complaint to include
a new plaintiff (Johnathon Abair) and a new defendant (Dr. John
Cavanaugh), but denied leave to add two additional defendants, Ms.
Pherson
and
Mr.
Boonstra,
private
Department of Child Services (“DCS”).
attorneys
retained
by
the
Judge Nuechterlein held it
was futile to add Ms. Pherson and Mr. Boonstra (a married couple
who represented DCS interchangeably), because they “were acting in
their capacity as attorneys for DCS in the CHINS proceeds against
Finnegan. As a result, Millspaugh and Pelham dictate that they are
entitled to absolute immunity.”
In
their
response,
the
(DE #90, pp. 5-6.)
State
Defendants
set
forth
two
arguments: (1) the Magistrate’s ruling denying the request to add
claims against Boonstra and Pherson should be upheld; and (2) this
Court should reverse the Magistrate’s decision finding that the
claims by the proposed additional plaintiff, Johnathon Abair, are
not barred by the statute of limitations and are not futile. (DE
#98.) Plaintiffs contend that because the State Defendants did not
timely file an objection to the Magistrate’s ruling, they cannot
then argue in their response that Abair was improperly added.
(DE
#100.)
DISCUSSION
A district court's review of any discovery-related decisions
made by a magistrate judge is governed by Rule 72(a) of the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure.
Rule 72(a) provides that, "[t]he
2
district judge in the case must consider timely objections and
modify or set aside any part of the order that is clearly erroneous
or is contrary to law."
Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a); see also 28 U.S.C.
§ 636(b)(1). The clear error standard means the district court can
overturn the magistrate judge's ruling only if the district court
is left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has
been made.
Weeks v. Samsung Heavy Indus. Co., Ltd., 126 F.3d 926,
943 (7th Cir. 1997).
With that admonishment in mind, this Court
will review Magistrate Judge Nuechterlein's rulings in the Order
relating
to
proposed
plaintiff
Abair
and
proposed
defendants
Boonstra and Pherson.
Boonstra and Pherson
The
Magistrate
found
that
absolute
immunity
attached
to
Pherson and Boonstra, DCS attorneys, and therefore, it would not be
appropriate to add them to the complaint. (DE #90, pp. 5-6.)
However, Plaintiffs now argue that some specific tasks performed by
Pherson and Boonstra were outside their scope of prosecutorial
duties, and criticize the Magistrate for not engaging in a “taskspecific” analysis, but rather granting blanket immunity to Pherson
and Boonstra based upon their positions as DCS attorneys in the
CHINS proceedings.
As noted by the Magistrate, the Seventh Circuit has held that
social workers are entitled to absolute immunity, even assuming
3
they act out of improper motives and mislead the Court.
See
Millspaugh v. County Dep’t of Public Welfare of Wabash County, 937
F.2d 1172, 1176 (7th Cir. 1991).
The same type of absolute
immunity attaches to attorneys in CHINS proceedings. See Pelham v.
Albright, No. 3:11 CV 99, 2012 WL 1600455, at *7 (N.D. Ind. May 4,
2012).
It is true that courts have taken a task-specific approach to
determining whether absolute immunity applies, and this truism was
acknowledged by the Magistrate in his opinion.
See Houston v.
Partee, 978 F.2d 362, 366 (7th Cir. 1992); (DE #90, p. 5).
Pelham,
the
participated
plaintiffs
in
a
alleged
conspiracy
that
to
the
place
state
false
In
defendants
testimony
and
information before a court, and that court found that “[a]bsolute
immunity clearly protects these defendants from a lawsuit based on
these
alleged
acts,
as
the
alleged
associated with the judicial process.’”
conduct
is
‘intimately
Pelham, 2012 WL 1600455,
at *7 (citing Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U.S. 409, 430 (1976)). Thus,
the defendants were “protected by absolute immunity for these
alleged actions despite the fact that they may have misled the
court or possessed improper motives.”
Id. (citing Millspaugh, 937
F.2d at 1176).
Likewise, here, the Plaintiffs alleged that Boonstra and
Pherson were involved in the CHINS petitions, participated in
judicial hearings and detention hearings, were active in discovery,
4
and interacted with the Finnegans’ counsel.
(DE #92, pp. 7-19.)
This Court does not believe it was “clear error” for the Magistrate
to find that this alleged conduct was “intimately associated with
the judicial process,” Imbler, 424 U.S. at 430, and thus Boonstra
and Pherson were acting in their capacity as attorneys for DCS, and
are entitled to absolute immunity.
Johnathon Abair
The State Defendants argue that it was improper for the
Magistrate to allow Plaintiffs to amend the complaint to add
Johnathon Abair, Lynnette Finnegan’s son, as a plaintiff.
The
complaint alleges that Johnathon had a good relationship with his
mother and stepfather until January 29, 2007, when “Det. McDonald
told him, falsely, that Jessica had been murdered and that his
mother and stepfather were blaming him.
These false claims
destroyed Johnathon’s relationship with his parents.”
(DE #87-1,
p. 92.) The first amended complaint alleges that “Jonathon did not
learn that Det. McDonald had provided him with false information
and had falsely reported on the information that he had provided
until the night before his August 2011 deposition.”
(DE #87-1, p.
93.)
The State Defendants contend that adding Johnathon Abair at
this
late
stage
of
the
proceedings
violates
the
statute
of
limitations. However, Plaintiffs contend that the false actions
5
continued until final disposition of the matter on May 14, 2010,
and that Johnathon Abair did not learn about the false reports and
Defendants’ reckless and intentional conduct until the eve of his
August 2011 deposition - thus the claims are timely filed within
the two-year statute of limitations.
(DE #89, pp. 6-7.)
Taking
the allegations in the complaint at face value, the Court does not
believe the Magistrate committed a clear error of law in allowing
Johnathon Abair to be added as a plaintiff.1
The State Defendants
also argue that Johnathon Abair has no standing because federal law
does not provide a remedy for a sibling to sue for the alleged
improper removal of a sibling from the parents’ home.
7.)
(DE #98, p.
However, a close read of the complaint shows that Johnathon
Abair is not claiming damages strictly based upon the removal of
his sister and half-sister from his mother’s home.
The first
amended complaint alleges that the false claims of Detective
McDonald “destroyed Johnathon’s relationship with his parents.”
(DE #87-1, p. 92.)
Thus, Johnathon Abair does have standing.
CONCLUSION
For the aforementioned reasons, Plaintiffs’ Objections to the
Magistrate Judge’s June 5, 2012 Order, is OVERRULED. To the extent
that the State Defendants’ argue in their response that Johnathon
1
Because the State Defendants’ objection fails on the
merits, the Court declines to analyze whether it was timely.
6
Abair should not have been added as a Plaintiff, that objection is
also OVERRULED.
DATED: July 24, 2012
/s/ RUDY LOZANO, Judge
United States District Court
7
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?