CANTY et al v. CITY OF PHILADELPHIA et al

Filing 58

MEMORANDUM AND/OR OPINION. SIGNED BY DISTRICT JUDGE JOHN M. YOUNGE ON 3/26/24. 3/26/24 ENTERED AND COPIES E-MAILED.(jaa, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
CRYSTAL R. CANTY,

:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:

Plaintiff,
v.
CITY OF PHILADELPHIA, et al.,
Defendants.

Civil Action
No. 23-1873

MEMORANDUM
J. Younge
I.

March 26, 2024

INTRODUCTION
Currently before this Court are Defendant Mann Mastery Elementary School’s and

Defendants Jessica Banh and Catholic Community Services’ Motions to Dismiss for Failure to
State a Claim. (ECF No. 48 & 52).1 The Court finds these Motions appropriate for resolution
without oral argument. Fed. R. Civ. P. 78; L.R. 7.1(f). For the reasons set forth in this
Memorandum, these Motions are Granted.
II.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND
This case stems from a series of events in May 2021 that resulted in Plaintiff Crystal

Canty’s two minor children being removed from her custody for seventeen months. On May 11,
2021, the Plaintiff suffered an anxiety attack and ultimately agreed to voluntary psychiatric
treatment at Albert Einstein Medical Center. (Am. Compl. ¶¶ 26-32, ECF No. 1.) This
admission was later labelled involuntary. (Am. Compl. ¶ 41.) Without Plaintiff’s permission,

1

When applicable, the Court adopts the pagination supplied by the CM/ECF docketing system,
which does not always match the document’s internal pagination.
1

her adult son, Amir Canty, was contacted to coordinate care for her two minor children and they
were brought to his home. (Am. Compl. ¶¶ 34-36.)
On May 13, 2021, while Plaintiff was still admitted, Mr. Canty dropped one of Plaintiff’s
children off at Mann Mastery Elementary School on a day that it was closed. (Am. Compl. ¶
37.) After determining that Plaintiff’s child had been left at the school alone and after being
unable to reach his emergency contacts, Janet Thompson, an employee of Mann Mastery,
transported him to the Philadelphia Police District 19 station house and left him in police
custody. (Am. Compl. ¶¶ 38 & 40.) A Dependency Petition was consequently filed against
Plaintiff in relation to her two minor children and the child in police custody was transferred to
the custody of the Department of Human Services (hereinafter “DHS”). (Am. Compl. ¶ 39.) Mr.
Canty was ultimately contacted and able to temporarily retrieve him from DHS custody. (Am.
Compl. ¶ 39.) Following further investigation, and after consideration of Plaintiff’s psychiatric
admission, which lasted three days, the two minor children were removed from her custody and
remained as such for the following seventeen months. (Am. Compl. ¶¶ 40-52.)
Plaintiff commenced this pro se action on May 13, 2023 with her original Complaint.
(ECF No. 1.) The Court granted Plaintiff leave to file an Amended Complaint on August 1,
2023. (ECF No. 30). Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint, adding a number of Defendants,2 was
filed on October 11, 2023 and alleged denials of due process and equal protection in violation of
the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments and, generally, loss of association with her children.
(ECF No. 36.) Defendant Mann Mastery Elementary School and Defendants Jessica Banh and

Certain Defendants were dismissed from this action in this Court’s Orders dated September 8,
2023, October 10, 2023, and March 6, 2024. (ECF Nos. 33, 34, & 57.)
2

2

Catholic Community Services filed their Motions to Dismiss on January 30, 2024 and February
7, 2024, respectively.3 (ECF Nos. 48 & 52.)
III.

LEGAL STANDARD
The standard for a motion to dismiss pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)

is examined in detail in Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009). After Iqbal, it is clear that
“[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory
statements, do not suffice” to defeat a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss. Id. at 678; see also Bell
Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007). “To survive dismissal, ‘a complaint must
contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to state a claim [for] relief that is plausible on
its face.’” Tatis v. Allied Interstate, LLC, 882 F.3d 422, 426 (3d Cir. 2018) (quoting Iqbal, 556
U.S. at 678). Facial plausibility is “more than a sheer possibility that a defendant has acted
unlawfully.” Id. (quoting Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678). Instead, “[a] claim has facial plausibility when
the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the
defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Id. (quoting Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678). Thus, this
Court must examine Plaintiff’s claims to determine whether it can infer that the Defendant is
liable for the alleged misconduct.
IV.

DISCUSSION
This Court relies largely on its analysis of Plaintiff’s constitutional claims as made in its

September 8, 2023 Order in finding that Plaintiff has pled insufficient facts to support her claims
against these Defendants. (See ECF No. 33.) Plaintiff has alleged denials of her due process and
equal protection rights in violation of the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments pursuant to 42

This Court’s February 20, 2024 Order granted Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File a Reply to
Defendants’ Motions to Dismiss within 45 days from the date said Motions were filed. As these
Motions were filed on January 30, 2024 and February 7, 2024, this deadline is deemed passed.
3

3

U.S. § 1983.4 The Fourth Amendment protects against unreasonable search and seizure by the
government. U.S. Const. amend. IV. This requires state action, through the use of physical
force or authority, that restrains the individual’s freedom of movement. 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
There is no liability under § 1983 for constitutional violations where the actors were not acting
under the color of state law. Groman v. Twp. of Manalapan, 47 F.3d 628, 638 (3d Cir. 1995).
The Fourteenth Amendment’s procedural due process protections requires that a plaintiff
claiming a denial of such show “the deprivation of an individual interest that is encompassed
within the Fourteenth Amendment’s protection of ‘life, liberty, or property’” and that the
procedures “available to the plaintiff[] did not provide ‘due process of law.’” Atkins v. Borough
of Phoenixville, 336 F. Supp. 3d 511, 517 (E.D. Pa. 2018) (quoting Hill v. Borough of Kutztown,
455 F.3d 225, 233-34 (3d Cir. 2006)). A substantive due process claim requires that a plaintiff
show that they were arbitrarily or irrationally deprived of a fundamental right. Nicholas v. Pa.
State Univ., 227 F.3d 133, 142 (3d Cir. 2000). Separation from one’s children implicates the
right against governmental intrusion into familial relationships. Miller v. City of Phila., 174 F.3d
368, 374-75 (3d Cir. 1999). The Fourteenth Amendment additionally protects against
“intentional and arbitrary discrimination” between similarly situated persons. Sunday Lake Iron
Co. v. Wakefield Twp., 247 U.S. 350, 352 (1918).
Notably, Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint failed to allege any facts whatsoever related to
Defendants Jessica Banh and Catholic Community Services’ conduct in this case. Instead, the
sole mention of Ms. Banh is as a party, and the only mentions of Catholic Community Services

4

The Court additionally notes that a two-year statute of limitations applies to due process and
equal protection claims brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 in Pennsylvania. 287 Corporate
Center Assocs. v. Twp. of Bridgewater, 101 F.3d 320, 323-324 (3d Cir. 1996); 42 Pa. C.S. §
5524(2).
4

are conclusory allegations asserting that it is responsible and liable for the actions of Defendant
DHS without stating how. Neither Defendant has been identified as a state actor and their
personal involvement is not alleged. See Rode v. Dellarciprete, 845 F.2d 1195, 1207 (3d Cir.
1988) (finding that a defendant’s personal participation in the alleged wrongs is necessary in a §
1983 action). These scant, conclusory allegations are insufficient to meet the standard set out in
Iqbal for making a plausible claim against these Defendants.
Defendant Mann Mastery Elementary School’s alleged involvement stems entirely from
its employee, Janet Thompson’s, actions in transferring Plaintiff’s minor child into police
custody after he had been found alone at a closed school building and she was unable to reach his
emergency contacts. This Court has already dismissed the case against Ms. Thompson, finding
that her actions did not violate the Constitution and were reasonable. (ECF Nos. 33 & 34.)
There is no independent factual allegation made against Mann Mastery. For the reasons outlined
above, this is insufficient in a § 1983 action. As such, Plaintiff’s claims cannot be sustained
against Defendant Mann Mastery.
Because these defects cannot be cured with further amendment, these claims shall be
dismissed with prejudice without leave to amend. See City of Cambridge Ret. Sys. v. Altisource
Asset Mgmt. Corp., 908 F.3d 872, 879 (3d Cir. 2018) (“Leave to amend is properly denied if
amendment would be futile, i.e., if the proposed complaint could not ‘withstand a renewed
motion to dismiss’”) (quoting Jablonski v. Pan. Am. World Airways, Inc., 863 F.2d 289, 292 (3d
Cir. 1988)); see also In re Burlington Coat Factory Sec. Litig., 114 F.3d 1410, 1434 (3d Cir.
1997) (recognizing that denial of leave to amend is not an abuse of discretion where the
pleadings before the court demonstrate that further amendment would be
futile).

5

V.

CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, Defendants’ Motions to Dismiss are Granted.
An appropriate Order follows.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

BY THE COURT:
/s/ John Milton Younge
Judge John Milton Younge

6