Diarra v. Young et al
Filing
22
MEMORANDUM AND OPINION re: 10 motion, 13 motion and 18 motion. Signed by District Judge R Leon Jordan on 12/22/2014. (copy mailed)(KMK, )
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
AT KNOXVILLE
KARIM DIARRA,
MINOR: DD, AD, AD, ND
Plaintiff,
v.
DONNY M. YOUNG and
MISTY MILLER,
Defendants.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
No. 3:14-CV-145
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Plaintiff has filed suit, pro se, under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against defendants
Donny M. Young and Misty Miller. According to the complaint, defendants Young and
Miller were, respectively, the guardian ad litem and the family service worker involved in
a child custody matter regarding the defendant’s children.
Defendant Young has filed a motion to dismiss, to which the plaintiff has
responded. [Docs. 13, 20]. Defendant Miller has also filed a motion to dismiss, to which
the plaintiff has also responded. [Docs. 10, 19]. Lastly, the defendant has filed a motion
to amend his complaint, to which neither defendant has responded. [Doc. 18]. For the
reasons that follow, defendant Young’s motion will be granted; plaintiff’s motion will be
granted; and defendant Miller’s motion will be denied with leave to renew.
I.
Defendant Young
Plaintiff’s complaint challenges the concerns and recommendations voiced
by Young in his role as guardian ad litem. Young’s motion correctly argues that he is
entitled to quasi-judicial immunity from suit in this case. A guardian ad litem
must act in the best interests of the child he represents. Such a position
clearly places him squarely within the judicial process to accomplish that
goal. A guardian ad litem must also be able to function without the worry
of possible later harassment and intimidation from dissatisfied parents.
Consequently, a grant of absolute immunity would be appropriate. A
failure to grant immunity would hamper the duties of a guardian ad litem in
his role as advocate for the child in judicial proceedings.
Kurzawa v. Mueller, 732 F.2d 1456, 1458 (6th Cir. 1984).
The court notes that plaintiff’s complaint and response allege that Young
made a “falsification of statement” or an “emotional judgment.” It is, however, apparent
from a reading of the complaint as a whole that plaintiff is simply challenging Young’s
actions in his role as an advocate for plaintiff’s children. Even if that were not the case,
Young would still be entitled to quasi-judicial immunity. See, e.g., Kolley v. Adult
Protective Servs., 786 F. Supp. 2d 1277, 1298-99, n.19 (E.D. Mich. 2011) (allegations of
malice, conspiracy, falsehood, and bad faith do not defeat entitlement to immunity in
defendant’s role as guardian ad litem) (collecting cases). For these reasons, defendant
Young will be dismissed from this case with prejudice.
2
II.
Remaining Motions
Defendant Miller moves for dismissal only due to insufficient process and
insufficient service of process, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(4) and
(5). Miller’s memorandum in support of her motion also raises the question of whether
she has been sued in her individual or official capacity.
Plaintiff subsequently filed his “Motion to Amend Complaint to Add the
State of Tennesse [sic] as Defendent [sic].” Therein, plaintiff explains his desire to
“amend the pleadings to add the State of Tennessee in its state capacity” and to clarify
that “Ms. Miller is being sue[d] in her official capacity as an employee of the State of
Tennessee.” According to the defendant, this “is a[n] adjustment which makes the
pleading more precise by clarifying the identities of the defendant Ms. Miller alleged in
the original complaint.’
In deference to plaintiff’s pro se status, the court will grant the request to
amend. The filing of an amended complaint, in turn, renders moot defendant Miller’s
motion to dismiss the original complaint. Miller’s motion will be denied with leave to
renew, as the court’s ruling this date in no way eliminates plaintiff’s duty to properly
serve his amended complaint on the remaining defendants.
3
An order consistent with this opinion will be entered.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
ENTER:
s/ Leon Jordan
United States District Judge
4
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?