Woodward et al v. DCCCA Inc. et al

Filing 118

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER granting 104 defendants' Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim; granting 113 defendants' Motion for Judgment; and granting 113 defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment. Plaintiffs' Appeal of Magistrate Judge Decision (Dkt. 116) is denied. Signed by District Judge J. Thomas Marten on 7/8/2011. Mailed to pro se parties James W. Woodward and Destiny Brown by regular mail. (mss)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS

JAMES W. WOODWARD AND
DESTINY BROWN ,
Plaintiffs,

vs.

Case No. 09-1410-JTM

DCCCA INC., ET AL,
Defendants.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

This matter arises from a Kansas state court proceeding in which the child of pro se plaintiffs
Destry Brown and James Woodward was determined to be in need of care and removed from their
custody. Brown and Woodward seek monetary damages against various court officers and state
agents associated with that decision. By prior Order, the court has dismissed from the action two
judges involved in the Butler County District Court proceeding, along with the plaintiff’s courtappointed counsel and the former governor of Kansas. This ruling was based in part on the
determination that the court should abstain from inserting itself into ongoing state child custody
proceedings, consistent with Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971).
The action is now before the court on three motions. First, defendants Don Jordan, Debra
Maier,1 Jennifer Wiebe, and Loresa Lewis have moved for dismissal of the action under
1

In the Complaint, plaintiffs have identified this defendant as “Debra Maaeir.”

Fed.R.Civ.Pr. 12(c) for failure to state a claim and for improper service. (Dkt. 104). Second,
defendants Butler County Attorney Darrin Devinney and Assistant County Attorney Cheryl Pierce
have moved for judgment on the pleadings under Rule 12(c), or in the alternative for summary
judgment. Finally, the plaintiffs have filed an appeal from the decision of the United States
Magistrate Judge (Dkt. 115), arguing that the Magistrate Judge erred in refusing to authorize
immediate discovery and order production of state court records.
The Motion to Dismiss filed by Jordan, Maier, Wiebe, and Lewis is hereby granted. Jordan
is the director of the Kansas Department of Social and Rehabilitational Services; the other
defendants are SRS social workers. These defendants argue (1) that the Complaint (Dkt. 1, at ¶ 8-9)
fails to identify any conduct demonstrating the denial of any constitutional right, (2) that they are
entitled to qualified immunity as to the plaintiffs’ vague allegations, (3) that they are entitled to
quasi-judicial immunity, (4) that the action is time-barred, (5) Younger abstention, and (5) failure
to properly serve the defendants consistent with Fed.R.Civ.Pr. 4(e) and K.S.A. 60-304(a).
The court will grant the SRS defendants’ Motion to Dismiss. First, as noted in its prior Order,
the State of Kansas has a legitimate and strong interest in the resolution of the underlying child
custody proceedings, and plaintiffs have failed to demonstrate that they will not be able to obtain all
appropriate relief in the state courts. Accordingly, the court will abstain from resolution of the
plaintiffs’ claims. Second, plaintiffs have failed to show any particular action by the SRS defendants
which worked a constitutional deprivation. Third, they have failed to bring their actions against the
SRS in a timely fashion, given that the initial removal of the child from plaintiffs’ custody occurred
in September of 2006. Fourth, the court finds that plaintiffs never properly obtained service on the
SRS defendants.
2

Brown and Woodward have supplied no response to the Motion to Dismiss of defendants
Devinney and Pierce, which is grounded on absolute and qualified immunity, as well as Younger
abstention. The defendants’ motion is granted for good cause shown and pursuant to D.Kan.R. 7.4.
Finally the court will deny plaintiffs’ appeal from the decision of the Magistrate Judge. The
Magistrate Judge denied the plaintiffs’ separate Motion for Discovery (Dkt. 74), explicitly finding
that the plaintiffs had failed to serve any prior discovery requests to the defendants, and had not
“followed any of the rules of civil procedure for compelling discovery.” (Dkt. 115, at 3). The
Magistrate Judge reiterated this finding as to the motion seeking production of state court transcripts,
stating that the motion “fails to comply with any of the federal rules of civil procedure concerning
discovery requests and motions to compel.” (Id. at 5).
In reaching this conclusion, the Magistrate Judge explicitly agreed with defendants’
arguments that the motion to compel was advanced without any accompanying briefing, as required
by D.Kan.R. 7.1, and without any certificate of an attempt to confer with opposing counsel prior to
filing the motion as required by D.Kan.R. 37.2. (Dkt. 78, at 2-3). The plaintiffs’ appeal simply
repeats the putative relevance of the requested evidence — showing that “the state ... kidnaped their
child without proper due process [yet] kept all their bogus activity ... a state secret,” (Dkt. 116, at 3),
making no attempt to excuse the failure to comply with Rules 7.1 or 37.2.
IT IS ACCORDINGLY ORDERED this 8th day of July, 2011, that the defendants’ Motions
to Dismiss (Dkt. 104, 113) are granted; plaintiffs’ Appeal of Magistrate Judge Decision (Dkt. 116)
is denied.

s/ J. Thomas Marten
J. THOMAS MARTEN, JUDGE
3