Davis-Massey v. Ameen

CANDICE DEE DAVIS-MASSEY,BRIAN JOSEPH MASSEY, and ADH, a minor, Plaintiffs, v. CHERYL AMEEN, SUZANNE KOFKA, MARCHELLE DENKER,MARY JANE SOKOLOVSKE, DEWEY P. SLOAN, JAQUELIN FOX,KRISTINE TIMMINS and CHARLES PALMER, Defendants.

No. C16-4020

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF IOWA WESTERN DIVISION

August 22, 2016

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

TABLE OF CONTENTS

I. INTRODUCTION ...................................... 2

II. PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND ............................ 3

III. RELEVANT FACTS ..................................... 3

A. The Parties ....................................... 3

B. Factual Recitation in Plaintiffs' Complaint .................. 5

C. Underlying State Court Proceedings Associated with Plaintiffs' Complaint ................................ 7

IV. MOTION TO DISMISS STANDARDS ......................... 8

A. Rule 12(b)(1) ..................................... 8

B. Rule 12(b)(6) ..................................... 9

V. LEGAL STANDARD FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT .............. 10

VI. DISCUSSION ........................................ 11

A. Rooker-Feldman Doctrine ............................ 12

B. Absolute and Qualified Immunity ....................... 14

1. Absolute Immunity ............................ 14

a. Defendants Kofka, Ameen, and Palmer .......... 14

b. Judge Sokolovske ......................... 16

c. Defendants Sloan, Fox, and Timmins ........... 17

2. Qualified Immunity ............................ 19

C. Failure to State a Valid Claim under § 1983 ................ 21

D. Statute of Limitations ............................... 22

E. Res Judicata ..................................... 23

F. Actions Performed in Purely Supervisory Capacity ............ 25

VII. CONCLUSION ....................................... 26

VIII. RECOMMENDATION .................................. 27

I. INTRODUCTION

This matter comes before the Court on the Motion to Dismiss (docket number 6) filed by Defendants Cheryl Ameen, Suzanne Kofka, and Charles Palmer on May 6, 2016; the Motion to Dismiss (docket number 8) filed by Defendant Marchelle Denker on May 6, 2016; the Motion to Dismiss (docket number 9) filed by Defendant Mary Jane Sokolovske on May 6, 2016; and the Motion for Summary Judgment (docket number 12) filed by Defendants Dewey P. Sloan, Jaquelin Fox, and Kristine Timmins on May 20, 2016.

On May 9, 2016, Judge Leonard T. Strand referred the motions to dismiss to a magistrate judge for a report and recommendation pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B). Also, on May 24, 2016, Judge Strand referred the motion for summary judgment to amagistrate judge for a report and recommendation. Pursuant to Local Rule 7.c, the motions will be decided without oral argument.

II. PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

On March 25, 2016, Plaintiffs Candice Dee Davis-Massey, Brian Joseph Massey, and minor child ADH, filed a Complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging Defendants violated their Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments rights. Plaintiffs are seeking: (1) Return of ADH's "custody and all rights" to Candice Davis-Massey and Brian Massey; (2) "ADH's residence not change from Woodbury County until this action is resolved"; (3) Brian Massey's removal from the child abuse registry; and (4) monetary damages in the amount of $4,900,001, plus legal fees, court costs, interest, and any additional awards determined by the court.

On May 3, 2016, Defendants Sloan, Fox, and Timmins filed an Answer, generally denying the material allegations contained in the complaint, and asserting certain affirmative defenses. On May 6, 2016, Defendants Ameen, Kofka, Palmer, Denker, and Sokolovske filed their instant motions to dismiss. On May 20, 2016, Defendants Sloan, Fox, and Timmins filed the instant motion for summary judgment. Plaintiffs did not file any type of resistance to the motions to dismiss or the motion for summary judgment, and the time for doing so has passed.¹

III. RELEVANT FACTS

A. The Parties

Plaintiffs Candice Davis-Massey and Brian Massey are married. It is Candice Davis-Massey's second marriage. Plaintiff ADH is Candice Davis-Massey's daughter from her first marriage. Plaintiffs' complaint stems from Candice Davis-Massey and BrianMassey's loss of custody of ADH, and Brian Massey being prosecuted for misdemeanor assault.

Defendant Suzanne Kofka is a retired employee of the Iowa Department of Human Services ("DHS"), where she worked in the state social services agency. She handled child welfare actions for the agency. It appears from Plaintiffs' complaint that Kofka investigated and initiated the child-in-need-of-assistance ("CINA") action regarding ADH.

Defendant Cheryl Ameen is an employee of the Iowa DHS, and works in the state social services agency. She handles child welfare actions for the agency. Similar to Kofka, it appears from Plaintiffs' complaint that Ameen teamed with Kofka in investigating and initiating the CINA action regarding ADH.

Defendant Charles Palmer is the Director of the Iowa DHS. He is Kofka and Ameen's highest level supervisor.

Defendant Marchelle Denker is employed by the State of Iowa as a Public Defender. Denker was appointed to serve as ADH's attorney and guardian ad litem in juvenile court proceedings associated with this case.²

Defendant Mary Jane Sokolovske is an Iowa State Court Judge in Iowa District 3B. Judge Sokolovske presided over various parts of child custody and termination of parental rights proceedings concerning ADH in the juvenile court.

Defendant Dewey P. Sloan is a retired former Assistant Woodbury County Attorney. He was assigned to the Juvenile Division of the Woodbury County Attorney's office. Sloan petitioned for the termination of Candice Davis-Massey's parental rights on two separate occasions.

Defendants Jaquelin Fox and Kristine Timmins are employed as Assistant Woodbury County Attorneys. They are both assigned to the Misdemeanor Division of theWoodbury County Attorney's office. They prosecuted Brian Massey for misdemeanor assault.

B. Factual Recitation in Plaintiffs' Complaint

According to the complaint, on August 25, 2011, Iowa DHS interviewed ADH regarding a claim of child abuse against her. ADH was interviewed by Defendant Suzanne Kofka. Based on statements from ADH, the complaint asserts on September 26, 2011, DHS "founded and confirmed" Brian Massey of child abuse, and Plaintiffs lost custody of ADH. Additionally, while it is unclear from the complaint, Plaintiff Brian Massey was arrested for child abuse at some point in time.

Next, the complaint asserts that on October 24, 2011, Plaintiff Candice Davis-Massey picked up ADH, presumably at day care/school for visitation, and noticed a hand print on ADH's lower left back/buttock. ADH told Davis-Massey that her father's girlfriend caused the mark on her left back/buttock. Because the incident occurred in South Dakota, Davis-Massey contacted police in Elk Point, South Dakota. According to the complaint, ADH's father and girlfriend initially denied hitting ADH, but later admitted spanking her. The complaint also states ADH's father admitted hitting ADH in August 2011 for throwing Legos.

The complaint further alleges that following the hand print/spanking incident, Iowa DHS employee Defendant Cheryl Ameen spoke with police officers in South Dakota, who told her ADH's father admitted hitting ADH in August and October, 2011. In response, the complaint alleges DHS ignored the information from the South Dakota police; and instead, completely prevented ADH from having visitation with her mother, Candice Davis-Massey. The complaint alleges Ameen met with ADH's father to conspire to "cover-up" ADH's father's alleged physical abuse in August and October, 2011. Specifically, the complaint states:

[s]o here we sit, knowing that [ADH's father] is abusing ADH and we knew it was being covered up, BUT, we had no proof, we knew that Ameens [(sic)] lie that ADH fell in to a dresser was just that, a lie. There was nothing we could do, we are told ADH fell in to a dresser and that is why she has a hand print on her back.

Plaintiffs' Complaint (docket number 1) at 7-8.

It is unclear from the complaint, but sometime later Davis-Massey sent Judge Sokolovske a letter detailing the events that allegedly took place in South Dakota involving ADH being hit by her father. The complaint asserts the "letter was ignored by [Judge] Sokolovske."³

Next, the complaint alleges on May 15, 2012, at a termination of parental rights hearing, evidence was admitted in the form of an email from South Dakota, presumably discussing ADH's father hitting ADH in August and October, 2011. According to the complaint:

At this exact moment in time Marchelle Denker, Dewey Sloan, Jaquelin Fox, Kristine Timmins and Judge Sokolovske all knew [ADH's father] had admitted hurting ADH in August and October. This exculpatory evidence was hidden by every single one of these attorneys and ignored by the judge.

Plaintiffs' Complaint (docket number 1) at 8.

The complaint further states Davis-Massey contacted Defendant Charles Palmer, Director of the Iowa DHS, complaining about the actions of Kofka and Ameen (employees in his department) and what had happened to her family. According to the complaint,Palmer responded "the Child Protective Worker conducted the required interviews to determine that Brian Massey caused the injury to ADH."⁴

The complaint concludes:

Fact is [ADH's father] was on a no contact order with Candice when he abused ADH in August. If you take ADH's statements and deposition you see that it does not make any sense about what transpired, however if you replace Brian's name with [ADH's father] in her testimony it clearly shows an accurate portrayal of what really happened to ADH. . . . Lastly was the Termination hearing and on March 27th 2014 when Judge Sokolovske gave custody of my daughter to the man that abuses her.

Plaintiffs' Complaint (docket number 1) at 10.

While it is not entirely clear from the complaint, Plaintiffs apparently allege that the actions set forth above...