M.R. v. CURRY et al

Filing 24

ORDER. For the reasons more fully stated in the Order filed herewith, Defendants' Motions to Dismiss (Docs. 6 and 19 ) are DENIED. Signed by Judge Cathy Bissoon on 8/16/16. (jwr)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
M.R., individually and as guardian of K.C., )
a minor,
)
)
Plaintiffs,
)
)
v.
)
)
PAMELA CURRY, et. al.,
)
)
Defendants.
)

Civil Action No. 15-1305
Judge Cathy Bissoon

ORDER
Defendants’ Motions to Dismiss (Docs. 6 and 19) will be denied.
The Court finds Plaintiffs have pleaded sufficient facts to state a claim under Section
1983 under a state-created danger theory. According to the allegations in the Complaint,
Plaintiff K.C. suffered immeasurable harm, including, but not limited to, being removed from her
home and separated from her mother, grandmother and half-siblings, (compl. (Doc. 1) at ¶¶ 3034, 42-48, 51-52), harm that would have been reasonably foreseeable to Plaintiff K.C.’s
caseworker, Defendant Jennifer Olexsak. Additionally, Plaintiffs allege that Defendant Olexsak
falsified the information in her report in order to effectuate the removal of Plaintiff K.C. from her
mother’s home. Such conduct clearly satisfies a “shock the conscience” standard. Further, the
Court finds Defendant Olexsak was capable of exercising sufficient control over Plaintiff K.C.
such that a relationship existed.
As to the question of Monnell liability, the Court finds Plaintiffs have pleaded sufficient
facts to support their contention that Butler County had a policy or custom that motivated the
constitutional violation. The Court agrees with Plaintiffs that the statement by a Butler County

Children and Youth Services (“CYS”) caseworker-supervisor that, in light of Plaintiff K.C.’s
circumstances, CYS plans to change how it treats instances of caseworker-familial relationships
in the future, provides sufficient factual allegations that a policy existed and that that policy
resulted in harm to Plaintiff K.C. (Doc. 1) at ¶ 50.
Additionally, the Court finds Plaintiffs have alleged sufficient facts to state claim for civil
conspiracy. The Complaint contains facts to support the conclusion that Defendants Olexsak,
Thomas Curry, and Pamela Curry conspired together to remove Plaintiff K.C. from her mother
and from her home. Based on the totality of the facts alleged in the Complaint, the Court cannot
see any intent other than a malicious one.
Finally, the Court elects to retain jurisdiction over the pendant state law claims. The
claims clearly arise from a common nucleus of operative facts. Further, the Court disagrees with
Defendants Pamela and Thomas Curry that judicial economy would be served by allowing the
state law claims to proceed in state court. Such a decision would force Plaintiffs to try this
matter in two separate venues, the opposite of judicial economy, fairness and convenience to the
litigants.
Consistent with the foregoing, Defendants’ Motions to Dismiss (Docs. 6 and 19) are
DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

August 16, 2016

cc (via ECF email notification):
All Counsel of Record

s/Cathy Bissoon
Cathy Bissoon
United States District Judge