Matherne v. Louisiana State et al

Filing 55

ORDER granting 7 Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction and Failure to State a Claim, for reasons set forth in document. Party Genecia Hill dismissed. Signed by Judge Greg Gerard Guidry on 01/21/2020. (ko)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
CIVIL ACTION

HEATH A. MATHERNE

NO: 18-3396

VERSUS

SECTION: T (3)

STATE OF LOUISIANA, THROUGH
THE DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN
AND FAMILY SERVICES, GENECIA
HILL, AND LAFOURCHE PARISH
SCHOOL BOARD
ORDER

Before the Court is a Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction and Failure
to State a Claim Upon Which Relief May Be Granted1 filed by defendant Genecia Hill (“Hill”).
Heath A. Matherne (“Plaintiff”) has filed an opposition.2 For the following reasons, the motion to
dismiss is GRANTED.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
This matter arises out of Plaintiff’s claim for monetary damages under 42 U.S.C. § 1983
against Hill, State of Louisiana through the Department of Children and Family Services
(“DCFS”), and LaFourche Parish School Board (collectively, “Defendants”). Plaintiff alleges
Defendants violated his constitutional rights by taking Plaintiff’s minor daughter from school due
to allegations of child abuse without first notifying Plaintiff.3 Hill moves to dismiss the complaint
pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6) contending the complaint fails
to state a claim upon which relief may be granted and asserting Hill is entitled to qualified
immunity. Plaintiff opposes the motion and claims Hill is not entitled to qualified immunity

1

R. Doc. 7.
R. Doc. 15.
3
R. Doc. 1-2.
2

1

because Plaintiff’s daughter was taken from school without any warrant, court order, evidence,
exigent circumstances, or any notification to Plaintiff.
LAW AND ANALYSIS
A. Rule 12(b)(1) and Rule 12(b)(6) Standards
Federal Courts are courts of limited jurisdiction, possessing only the authority granted by
the United States Constitution and conferred by the United States Congress.4 Motions to dismiss
based on Eleventh Amendment sovereign immunity are analyzed under Rule 12(b)(1) of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which provides that a court “has the power to dismiss for lack
of subject matter jurisdiction on any one of three separate bases: (1) the complaint alone; (2) the
complaint supplemented by undisputed facts evidenced in the record; or (3) the complaint
supplemented by undisputed facts plus the court's resolution of disputed facts.”5 The burden of
proof for a Rule 12(b)(1) motion to dismiss is on the party asserting jurisdiction.6 Courts should
determine whether subject-matter jurisdiction is present before addressing other issues.7
Rule 12(b)(6) provides that an action may be dismissed “for failure to state a claim upon
which relief can be granted.”8 Motions to dismiss for failure to state a claim are viewed with
disfavor and are rarely granted. 9 To survive a motion to dismiss, a “complaint must contain
sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’”10
In evaluating a complaint under Rule 12(b)(6), the court should confine itself to the pleadings,11
and the documents attached to the complaint.12

4

Howery v. Allstate Ins. Co., 243 F.3d 912, 916 (5th Cir. 2001).
St. Tammany Parish ex rel. Davis v. Fed. Emergency Mgmt. Agency, 556 F.3d 307, 315 (5th Cir.2009).
6
Ramming v. United States, 281 F.3d 158, 161 (5th Cir. 2001).
7
Ramming, 281 F.3d at 161 (citing Hitt v. Pasadena, 561 F.2d 606, 608 (5th Cir. 1977) (per curiam)).
8
Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6).
9
Kaiser Aluminum & Chem. Sales, Inc. v. Avondale Shipyards, Inc., 677 F.2d 1045, 1050 (5th Cir. 1982).
10
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)).
11
Kennedy v. Chase Manhattan Bank USA, NA, 369 F.3d 833, 839 (5th Cir. 2004).
12
Collins v. Morgan Stanley Dean Witter, 224 F.3d 496, 498 (5th Cir. 2000).
5

2

B. Claims Against Hill in Her Official Capacity
Under the Eleventh Amendment, “[t]he Judicial power of the United States shall not be
construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the
United States by Citizens of another State, or by Citizens or Subjects of any Foreign State.” This
broad grant of immunity also extends to federal suits against a state brought by the citizens of that
state.13 The Eleventh Amendment bars claims for damages when the claimant is suing state officers
in their official capacities, and the damages would be paid out of the state treasury.14
In this case, Plaintiff’s complaint asserts a 42 U.S.C. §1983 claim against Hill, an employee
of DCFS, and seeks recovery of monetary damages. To the extent Plaintiff’s claim is made against
Hill in her official capacity, Hill is not considered a person for purposes of §1983.15 Therefore, the
claim for monetary damages against Hill in her official capacity is barred by sovereign immunity,
and this Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over the 42 U.S.C. §1983 claim against Hill in her
official capacity.
C. Claims Against Hill in Her Individual Capacity
State child care workers such as Hill are entitled to qualified immunity in the performance
of discretionary, non-prosecutorial functions.

16

To determine whether a defendant may

successfully avail herself of the defense of qualified immunity with regard to individual capacity
claims under Section 1983, the court undertakes a two-step analysis. First, the court must
determine whether the plaintiff has alleged “the violation of a clearly established constitutional
right.”17 Second, if such a violation is alleged, the court next considers “whether the allegedly

13

See Hans v. Louisiana, 134 U.S. 1, 10 S.Ct. 504, 33 L.Ed. 842 (1890).
Chrissy F. by Medley v. Mississippi Dep't of Pub. Welfare, 925 F.2d 844, 849 (5th Cir. 1991).
15
Burnette v. Brooks, 250 F.3d 740 (5th Cir. 2001).
16
See Stem v. Ahearn, 908 F.2d 1, 5 (5th Cir. 1990), cert. denied, 498 U.S. 1069 (1991).
17
Spann v. Rainey, 987 F.2d 1110, 1114 (5th Cir. 1993) (quoting Siegert v. Gilley, 500 U.S. 226, 231, 111 S.Ct.
1789, 1793, 114 L.Ed.2d 277 (1991)).
14

3

violated constitutional rights were clearly established at the time of the incident; and, if so, whether
the conduct of the defendants was objectively unreasonable in the light of that then clearly
established law.”18
The complaint alleges that Hill took Plaintiff’s minor child from Raceland Upper
Elementary School without a court order,19 and that Hill would not tell Plaintiff where his child
was being held. 20 These assertions fail to allege that Hill violated a clearly established
constitutional right or that Hill’s actions were objectively unreasonable in light of clearly
established laws. Hill is, therefore, entitled to qualified immunity to the extent Plaintiff’s claims
are asserted against Hill in her individual capacity.
CONCLUSION
Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons, IT IS ORDERED that the Motion to Dismiss for
Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction and Failure to State a Claim Upon Which Relief May Be
Granted21 filed by defendant Genecia Hill is GRANTED. Heath A. Matherne’s claims pursuant
to 42 U.S.C. §1983 against Genecia Hill are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
New Orleans, Louisiana, on this ____ day of January, 2020.

GREG GERARD GUIDRY
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

18

Hare v. City of Corinth, 135 F.3d 320, 326 (5th Cir.1998) (internal citations omitted).
R. Doc. 1-2, ¶5.
20
R. Doc. 1-2, ¶7.
21
R. Doc. 7.
19

4