Woods v. Departmen of Child and Family Services et al
Filing
16
ORDER ADOPTING 14 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS. Signed by Judge Brian Morris on 6/12/2015. (SLL, ) Modified on 6/12/2015 to reflect copy of Order mailed to Plaintiff Woods, and to link Order to F/R. (SLR, ).
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MONTANA
GREAT FALLS DIVISION
CV-14-94-BMM
NIKITA WOODS,
Plaintiff,
vs.
ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS OF MAGISTRATE
JUDGE
DEPARTMENT OF CHILD AND
FAMILY SERVICES, IKE JESSEE,
SARAH GROTBO, MARY JO
JEFFRIES, SUSAN DAY, JILL
MILLER, MARY GETTEL, and
LORRE CLARK,
Defendants.
I.SYNOPSIS
Plaintiff Nikita Woods filed an amended complaint in this matter on April
20, 2015. (Doc. 13). Woods’ claims arise from the termination of her parental
rights to her son in 2013. Id. Woods alleges that defendants Montana Department
of Child and Family Services, Ike Jessee, Sarah Grotbo, Mary Jo Jeffries, Susan
Day, Jill Miller, Mary Gettel, and Lorre Clark (collectively “Defendants”) acted
together to improperly remove Woods’ son from her custody based on an
unauthorized DNA test. Id. Woods proceeds in forma pauperis. (Doc. 4).
1
Defendant Ike Jessee is a caseworker at the Montana Department of Child
and Family Services. (Doc. 14 at 3). Defendant Sara Grotbo is a caseworker at the
Department and she also serves as a social worker at the Benefis Sletten Cancer
Institute. Id. Defendant Mary Jo Jeffries is a clinical psychologist. Id. Defendant
Susan Day is a psychologist. Id. Defendant Mary Gettel is a CASA-CAN
volunteer. Id. Defendant Jill Miller is a caseworker with the Department. Id.
Defendant Lori Clark is a supervisor at the Department. Id. Skylynn Bird is
Wood’s sister-in-law. Id. at 4.
II.JUDGE JOHNSTON’S FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
United States Magistrate Judge John Johnston entered Findings and
Recommendations in this matter on May 27, 2015. (Doc. 14). Judge Johnston
permitted Wood to proceed with her slander, equal protection, and due process
claims against defendants Jessee Grotbo, Jill Miller, Mary Gettel, and Lorre Clark.
Id. at 2. Judge Judge Johnston authorized service of Wood’s amended complaint
and summons on these defendants. Id. at 13.
Judge Johnston recommends that this Court dismiss Woods’ claims that are
based on the violation of her son’s, her mother’s, and James Dean Bird’s personal
rights. Id. Judge Johnston also recommends that this Court dismiss Woods’ claims
against Skylynn Bird, Mary Jo Jeffries, and Susan Day due the fact that Wood
failed to allege that these defendants acted under color of state law. Id. Judge
2
Johnston further recommends that this Court dismiss Woods’ claims against the
Montana Department of Child and Family Services as the claims are barred by
sovereign immunity pursuant to the Eleventh Amendment. Id. at 13-14.
Woods timely filed objections. (Doc. 15). The Court will review de novo the
portions of Judge Johnston’s Findings and Recommendations to which Woods
objects. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). The Court will review for clear error the remainder
of Judge Johnston’s Findings and Recommendations. McDonnell Douglas Corp. v.
Commodore Bus. Mach. Inc., 656 F.2d 1309, 1313 (9th Cir. 1981).
III.ANALYSIS
A.
Woods’ claims based on the Personal Rights of her Son, Mother and
James Dean Bird
Woods objects to Judge Johnston’s recommendation that her claims based
on the Defendants’ violation of her son’s, mother’s, and James Dean Bird’s
personal rights should be dismissed with prejudice. (Doc. 15 at 1).
Woods alleges in her amended complaint that the Defendants deprived her
son of his Fourth Amendment protections against unreasonable searches and
seizures. Woods lacks standing to assert claims based on her son’s Fourth
Amendment rights. Moreland v. Las Vegas Metro. Police Dep’t., 159 F.3d 365,
369 (9th Cir. 1998) (a person does not have standing to vicariously assert the
Fourth Amendment rights of another person). The excessive force exception does
not apply to this case. Moreland, 159 F.3d at 369.
3
Woods also alleges that the Defendants violated her mother’s and Mr. Bird’s
personal rights. Woods also lacks standing to assert claims based on her mother’s
and James Dean Bird’s personal rights. Johns v .Co. of San Diego, 114 F.3d 874,
876 (9th Cir. 1997) (constitutional claims are “personal” to the injured party and
cannot be asserted vicariously).
B.
Woods’ Failure to Allege that Skylynn Bird, Jefferies, and Day Acted
under Color of State Law
Woods objects to Judge Johnston’s recommendation that defendants
Skylynn Bird, Mary Jo Jefferies, and Susan Day be dismissed with prejudice based
on Woods’ failure to allege that these defendants acted under the color of state law.
(Doc. 15 at 6).
Woods is required to allege facts that show the Defendants acted “under of
color of state law” or authority to proceed with claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
Sykes v. State of California Dept. of Motor Vehicles, 497 F.3d 197, 200 (9th Cir.
1974). Woods has failed to allege facts that establish Skylynn Bird, Mary Jo
Jefferies or Susan Day acted under color of state law or authority. Price v. State of
Hawaii, 939 F.2d 702, 707-08 (9th Cir. 1991). Skylynn Bird, Mary Jo Jefferies,
and Susan Day instead appear to be private actors. Private actors do not generally
act under color of state law. Price, 939 F.2d at 707-08.
C.
Woods’ claims against the Department of Child and Family Services are
barred by Sovereign Immunity pursuant to the Eleventh Amendment
4
Woods objects to Judge Johnston’s recommendation that the Department of
Child and Family Services should be dismissed with prejudice because it is
immune from suit. (Doc. 15 at 18).
Woods named the Department of Child and Family Services as a defendant.
The Department of Child and Family Services possesses Eleventh Amendment
immunity from suit in federal court. Idaho v. Coeur d’Alene Tribe of Idaho, 521
U.S. 261, 267-68 (1997). The Department of Child and Family Services also fails
to qualify as a “person” for the purposes of Woods’ 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claims.
Wolfe v. Strankman, 392 F.3d 358, 364 (9th Cir. 2004).
IV.CONCLUSION
Woods lacks standing to assert claims on behalf of her son, mother, and Mr.
Bird. Woods fails to allege facts that show defendants Skylynn Bird, Mary Jo
Jefferies, and Susan Day were acting under color of state law. Woods’ claims
against the Department of Child and Family Services are barred by the Eleventh
Amendment. The Court finds no clear error in the remainder of Judge Johnston’s
Findings and Recommendations.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Magistrate Judge John Johnston’s
Findings and Recommendations (Doc. 14) are ADOPTED IN FULL.
5
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED:
(1) Plaintiff Nikita Woods’ claims based on the violation of her son’s,
mother’s, and Mr. Bird’s personal rights are DISMISSED WITH
PREJUDICE.
(2) Plaintiff Nikita Woods’ claims against defendants Skylynn Bird, Mary
Jo Jefferies, and Susan Day are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.
(3) Plaintiff Nikita Woods’ claims against defendant Department of Child
and Family Services is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.
DATED this 12th day of June, 2015.
6
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?