Arguello v. Arguello, Case No. 12 CV 432 JAP/LAM

JOHNNY ARGUELLO, Plaintiff, v. DAYNA ARGUELLO, STATE OF NEW MEXICO,and KERI PATTISON, individually and in her official capacity,JOHN AND JANE DOES I-V,ABC CORPORATIONS I-V,and XYZ PARTNERSHIPS I-V, Defendants.

Case No. 12 CV 432 JAP/LAM

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO

December 27, 2012

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

Defendant Keri Pattison (Pattison), an employee of the New Mexico Children, Youth and Families Department (CYFD), asks the Court to grant summary judgment on the basis of qualified immunity on all federal law claims brought by Plaintiff Johnny Arguello (Plaintiff) under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. See MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON QUALIFIED IMMUNITY OF DEFENDANT PATTISON (Doc. No. 36) (Motion).¹ The Court will grant the Motion because Pattison is entitled to qualified immunity from those claims. Since only the state law tort claims will remain pending against Defendant Pattison and Defendant Dayna Arguello, the Court will decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction and will remand this caseto the Ninth Judicial District Court, Curry County, New Mexico. 28 U.S.C. § 1367 (c).

I. Standard of Review

Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 56, summary judgment is appropriate if there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). The defense of qualified immunity protects government officials, like Pattison, from individual liability under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for actions taken while performing discretionary functions, unless their conduct violates "clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known." Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 818 (1982). "When a defendant pleads qualified immunity, the plaintiff has the heavy burden of establishing: (1) that the defendant's actions violated a federal constitutional or statutory right; and (2) that the right violated was clearly established at the time of the defendant's actions." Greene v. Barrett, 174 F.3d 1136, 1142 (10th Cir. 1999). Given the purposes underlying qualified immunity, a plaintiff's burden is "heavy" in opposing summary judgment notwithstanding the court's obligation to view the evidence in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. Arredondo v. Locklear, 371 F. Supp. 2d 1281, 1295 (D. N.M. 2005) (citing Gross v. Pirtle, 245 F.3d 1151, 1155 (10th Cir. 2001)).

In the qualified immunity context, courts usually "accept the facts as the plaintiff alleges them." Riggins v. Goodman, 572, F.3d 1101, 1107 (10th Cir. 2009). However, at the summary judgment stage, the plaintiff's version of the facts must be supported by admissible evidence in the record. Scott v. Harris, 550 U.S. 372, 380 (2007). Thus, the Court must determine whether Plaintiff's allegations are "sufficiently grounded in the record[,]" and then the Court must determine whether those facts establish a violation of Plaintiff's constitutional rights. In this case, Plaintiff has failed to establish that Pattison violated Plaintiff's clearly establishedconstitutional rights. Thus, the Court need not consider the next step in the process, i.e. whether Pattison has proven that there are no genuine issues of material fact and that Pattison is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Medina v. Cram, 252 F.3d 1124, 1128 (10th Cir. 2001).

II. Background²

In early 2010, Plaintiff and Defendant Dayna Arguello (Defendant Arguello) were involved in a contentious divorce and child custody proceeding. (Mot. Ex. 1, Pattison Aff. ¶ 5; Resp. Ex. A, J. Arguello Aff. ¶ 7.) Plaintiff was granted temporary custody of the couple's child, L.A, and Defendant Arguello was granted supervised visitation rights. (Pattison Aff. ¶ 7.) Pattison was appointed by the domestic relations court to supervise Defendant Arguello's visits with L.A. Pattison is a licensed Master Social Worker and has been employed by the CYFD since 1998. (Pattison Aff. 1 ¶¶ 2-3,7; J. Arguello Aff. ¶ 8.) Pattison is also Defendant Arguello's mother and L.A.'s grandmother. Id. See also Arguello v. Arguello, Case No. D-0905-DM-0200800594, ORDER ON PETITIONER'S MOTION AND ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE (Ex. A to Pattison Aff.) (Supervision Order).

On January 22, 2010, in accordance with the Supervision Order, Pattison picked up L.A. from Plaintiff's residence for a 24-hour period of supervised visitation with Defendant Arguello. (Pattison Aff. ¶ 8.) L.A., who was six years old at the time, was uncooperative and difficult to control. Pattison had to carry L.A. to her car. (Id. ¶ 9.) Plaintiff testified that L.A. "did not want to go with Defendant Pattison and began to scream and struggle. Plaintiff picked up the minor child and handed the child to Defendant Pattison. As the minor child kicked and screamed,Defendant Pattison struggled to hold the minor child, stumbling and almost falling on two (2) occasions, and each time pulling the child closer and holding LA tighter." (Response Ex. A, Affidavit of Johnny Arguello ¶¶ 10-11.)

Pattison took L.A. to the mall where L.A. continued to act out. (Id.) Pattison then took L.A. to Defendant Arguello's apartment and put L.A. to bed at about 8:30 pm. (Id. ¶¶ 10-11.)³ When Defendant Arguello returned to her apartment later that evening, Defendant Arguello checked on L.A. and noticed a bruise in the shape of a hand on L.A.'s left thigh. (Id. ¶ 13.) Pattison also looked at L.A.'s leg and saw the bruise. (Id.) Pattison and Defendant Arguello took a photograph of the bruise. (Id.) Pattison called the Clovis Police Department and reported what she had seen. (Id. ¶ 15.) Pattison also explained the custody arrangement and described the behavior that L.A. exhibited earlier in the day. (Id.)

At approximately 11:25 pm, Clovis Police Officer Cameron Reeves (Officer Reeves) arrived at Defendant Arguello's apartment in response to the report. (Id. ¶ 16.) According to Officer Reeves' report, Officer Reeves was advised by Defendant Arguello that L.A. "had a handprint on his left thigh." (Ex. 4, Ex. A State of New Mexico Uniform Incident Report.) Officer Reeves looked at L.A., while L.A. was sleeping, and Officer Reeves reported that he "did indeed observe four finger marks on [L.A.'s] left thigh." (Id.) Officer Reeves took pictures of L.A.'s leg. (Id.) In his report, Officer Reeves stated that he was unable to interview Plaintiffat that time and that "[i]t is unknown . . . if John Arguello caused the handprint on [L.A.'s] thigh." (Id.) Officer Reeves contacted "SCI to make a referral about this incident." (Id.)⁴

At 12:08 am on January 23, 2010, Pattison also called Statewide Central Intake for CYFD to report suspected child abuse and neglect. (Pattison Aff. ¶ 18.) The CYFD classified the report from Pattison as a Priority 1 report. (Reply Ex. 7, CYFD Intake Report.)⁵

On January 23, 2010, Carol Gonzales, a CYFD Investigations Supervisor in the Clovis office, directed CYFD Investigator Donald Graves (Graves) to conduct a welfare check at Defendant Arguello's house in response to Pattison's report. (Pattison Aff. ¶ 20; Mot. Ex. 2, Graves Aff. ¶ 3.) Pattison is not Graves' supervisor. (Pattison Aff. ¶ 20; Graves Aff. ¶ 4.) Within 24 hours of a report of possible child abuse that is classified "Priority 1," CYFD policy requires that a CYFD employee conduct a welfare check. (Graves Aff. ¶ 5.) A welfare check is a visit to the child's residence to ensure that the child is "in a safe home environment and to determine if the child is in danger of serious harm." (Id.) During a welfare check, Graves usually talks to caregivers and witnesses if they are available. (Id.) Prior to the welfare check, Graves was told that L.A. was the grandchild of his co-worker, Pattison, and that Pattison was supervising L.A.'s visitation with Defendant Arguello at Defendant Arguello's apartment. (Id. ¶7.)

On January 23, 2010, Graves, along with Officer Trevor Thron of the Clovis Police Department, first visited Defendant Arguello's apartment because CYFD policy requires an investigator to begin at the location from which a report originates. (Id. ¶ 9.) Pattison stepped out of the room while Graves interviewed Defendant Arguello, and Graves heard Defendant Arguello's account of the events which prompted the report. (Id.) Graves also interviewed Pattison, and listened to Pattison's account of the events that occurred the previous evening. (Id. ¶ 11.) Graves and Officer Thron spoke to L.A., who stated that he had not been spanked. (Id. ¶ 12.) Graves testified that neither Defendant Arguello nor Pattison "named L.A.'s father, Johnny Arguello, as the suspected perpetrator." (Id. ¶ 13.) Graves determined that Defendant Arguello's apartment was in appropriate condition, and Graves did not have concerns for L.A.'s safety at that point. (Id. ¶ 14.)

Next, Graves and Officer Thron went to Plaintiff's residence. (Id. ¶ 15.) At first, Plaintiff refused to let Graves and Officer Thron enter his residence. (Id.) However, a short time later, Plaintiff invited Graves and Officer Thron into his residence. (Id.) Plaintiff testified, "[w]hen the armed officer arrived, I felt that I did not have any choice but to let them into my home. They wanted to look around, and I felt that I had no choice but to let them." (J. Arguello Aff. ¶ 33.) Plaintiff further testified, "Donald Graves, and an armed, uniformed Clovis Police officer, . . . showed up at my residence and interrogated me for a lengthy period of time." (Id. ¶ 12.) According to Plaintiff, "[i]t was not a brief welfare check. The interrogation was over half an hour long." (Id. ¶ 13.)

Graves found the condition of Plaintiff's residence to be appropriate. (Graves Aff. ¶ 17.) After the welfare checks, Graves had no more involvement in the investigation, and Graves didnot discuss the case with Pattison. (Id. ¶¶ 19- 21.)

When a CYFD employee has a close relationship with a minor victim or is a relative of a minor victim, CYFD usually transfers the investigation to another CYFD Office. (Mot. Ex. 3, Robin Garcia Aff. ¶...