Archibald v. The Department of Children & Families

Filing 10

Judge William G. Young: ORDER entered. For the reasons set forth in Judge Kelleys November 18, 2014 memorandum and order 5 , this action is DISMISSED. (PSSA, 3)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
KATIE ARCHIBALD,
Plaintiff,
v.
THE DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN &
FAMILIES,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

CIVIL ACTION NO.
14-12983-WGY

ORDER OF DISMISSAL
YOUNG, D.J.

June 17, 2015

For the reasons stated below, the Court dismisses this
action.
Pro se litigant Katie Archibald brought this action against
the Massachusetts Department of Children and Families (“DCF”),
alleging that the defendant wrongfully made a finding of neglect
against her.

The finding arose from the plaintiff’s work as a

staff member at a residential treatment center for boys.
According to the plaintiff’s filings, an altercation between
another staff member and a resident arose, resulting in injury to
the resident.

In its finding of neglect, DCF took the position

that the plaintiff should have known of the altercation and
intervened.

This finding resulted in the termination of the

plaintiff’s employment and the possibility of further employment
in her profession has been jeopardized.
In a memorandum and order dated November 18, 2014 (#5),
Magistrate Judge Kelley granted the plaintiff’s motion for leave
to proceed in forma pauperis and directed the plaintiff to show

cause why the action should not be dismissed.

Judge Kelley found

that any claims against the DCF were precluded by Eleventh
Amendment immunity.
On December 22, 2014, Archibald filed an amended complaint
in which she offered further information about the employment
incident in question and the actions of the DCF.

She did not,

however, address the issue of Eleventh Amendment immunity or
attempt to add claims against parties who are not protected by
the Eleventh Amendment.
However compelling the alleged facts of this case may be,
Archibald cannot maintain a claim against DCF in a federal court
unless she demonstrates that the state has waived its Eleventh
Amendment immunity or that Congress has overridden in it.

In the

absence of such a showing, the Court must dismiss this action.
Accordingly, for the reasons set forth in Judge Kelley’s
November 18, 2014 memorandum and order, this action is DISMISSED.

SO ORDERED.
/s/ William G. Young
WILLIAM G. YOUNG
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2