Eggleston v. Stuart

495 P.3d 482

Steve EGGLESTON, Appellant,

v.Georgina STUART; Clark County, Nevada; Lisa Callahan; and Brian Callahan, Respondents.

No. 80838

Supreme Court of Nevada.

FILED SEPTEMBER 23, 2021

McFarling Law Group and Emily M. McFarling, Las Vegas, for Appellant.

Olson Cannon Gormley & Stoberski and Felicia Galati, Las Vegas, for Respondents Clark County, Nevada, and Georgina Stuart.

Brian Callahan, New Lenox, Illinois, Pro Se.

Lisa Callahan, New Lenox, Illinois, Pro Se.

BEFORE THE SUPREME COURT, PARRAGUIRRE, STIGLICH, and SILVER, JJ.

OPINION

By the Court, SILVER, J.:

Appellant Steve Eggleston filed a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 civil rights claim, as well as various state law tort claims, in the district court. In his complaint, Eggleston alleged that respondent Georgina Stuart, who is employed by the Clark County Department of Family Services (DFS), and two police officers forced him to sign a temporary guardianship over his two minor children under threat of never seeing his children again. The papers gave temporary guardianship to the children's maternal aunt, Lisa Callahan, who thereafter took the children to another state. One month after Eggleston signed the papers, DFS made a finding of child maltreatment against Eggleston, which he administratively appealed. But Eggleston delayed the administrative hearing before a fair hearing officer and, in the meantime, filed the aforementioned civil rights and tort claims in the district court. The district court determined that punitive damages were not available and dismissed Eggleston's request for such damages against Stuart and thereafter dismissed Eggleston's § 1983 and state law tort claims for failure to exhaust his administrative remedies. Eggleston then appealed.

In this opinion, we conclude that, consistent with Patsy v. Board of Regents, 457 U.S. 496, 102 S.Ct. 2557, 73 L.Ed.2d 172 (1982), a party generally is not required to exhaust administrative remedies before filing a § 1983 civil rights claim. We also acknowledge that Zinermon v. Burch , 494 U.S. 113, 110 S.Ct. 975, 108 L.Ed.2d 100 (1990), provides a limited exception to Patsy's general rule for procedural due process claims. Here, we conclude that the district court erred by requiring Eggleston to administratively exhaust all potential remedies in his DFS case before bringing his § 1983 and state law tort claims, because, while related, the cases ultimately seek different remedies for different wrongs. The district court also erred by finding that Eggleston's § 1983 claim was solely a procedural due process claim subject to the exhaustion doctrine because Eggleston actually presented a substantive due process claim. Therefore, the district court improperly dismissed Eggleston's § 1983 and state law tort claims. We also conclude that the district court erred by determining that punitive damages were unavailable against Stuart at this point in the litigation.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Clark County and Stuart became involved with Eggleston after the mother of Eggleston's two minor children, Laura Battistella, allegedly expressed suicidal ideation in December 2014 and emergency services were summoned. As a result of Stuart's involvement, Eggleston asserts, he and Battistella agreed to participate in a DFS program designed to help increase the well-being of the entire family, which also included two other minor children of Battistella. In addition, Battistella's sister, Lisa Callahan, visited from the Chicago area to help with childcare and to support Battistella.

Eggleston alleges that on January 6, 2015, Stuart arrived at Eggleston and Battistella's home with two armed police officers, Lisa Callahan, and others. According to Eggleston, Stuart ordered Eggleston and Battistella to immediately sign temporary guardianship of the children over to Lisa Callahan, threatening that the police would take their children into custody and they would never see their children again if they did not comply. Under duress, Eggleston claims, he and Battistella signed the prepared temporary guardianship papers in front of a notary. Lisa Callahan thereafter took the children out of state, allegedly to Illinois to hide them from Eggleston.¹ Eggleston alleges that he has not seen his children since this event, for over five years now.

Thereafter, in early February, DFS made a finding of child maltreatment against Eggleston.² Eggleston appealed the finding to the DFS appeals unit, and the appeals unit manager upheld the finding. Eggleston then requested a fair hearing to administratively appeal that decision (the DFS case), as set forth in the relevant statutes. At Eggleston's request, the fair hearing was initially set for August 1, 2017, but Eggleston thereafter requested three continuances and stopped communicating with DFS to coordinate a date for that hearing.

At no point did DFS move to terminate Eggleston's parental rights in Nevada. After Lisa Callahan fled to Illinois, Eggleston alleges he did not know the whereabouts of Lisa and his children for years. Unbeknownst to Eggleston, Lisa Callahan petitioned for permanent guardianship in an Illinois court. Eggleston then moved to terminate the guardianship in Illinois.

Over one year after he requested a fair hearing in the DFS case, Eggleston filed a complaint against Georgina Stuart, DFS, Child Support Services, Clark County, Lisa Callahan, and Brian Callahan, alleging civil rights and tort law violations. Clark County and Stuart moved to dismiss the claims, arguing that Eggleston failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted and that punitive damages were not permitted pursuant to NRS 41.035(1), which precludes punitive damages awards against employees of political subdivisions acting in the scope of employment. The district court granted the motion, concluding that some of the claims were deficient and that punitive damages were unavailable, but leave to amend was granted.

Eggleston filed a first amended complaint, again claiming violation of his civil rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Clark County and Stuart; conspiracy to violate his civil rights and intentional infliction of emotional distress (IIED) against Clark County, Stuart, and the Callahans; and defamation against Clark County, Stuart, and Lisa Callahan. Clark County and Stuart moved to dismiss Eggleston's first amended complaint under NRCP 12(b)(5) based on Eggleston's failure to exhaust his administrative remedies in his DFS case. Clark County and Stuart argued that because Eggleston's fair hearing was still pending, the exhaustion of administrative remedies doctrine barred Eggleston's civil complaint. Eggleston opposed the motion, but the district court dismissed his claims, finding that Eggleston initiated an administrative appeals process in the DFS case that was still pending when he filed his first amended complaint in the district court. The court further found that Eggleston's civil rights claims were based on procedural due process violations and thus excepted from the general rule that § 1983 claims do not require exhaustion. Accordingly, the district court found that Eggleston must first exhaust his administrative remedies in the DFS case and dismissed his § 1983 civil rights and state law tort claims on that basis. Eggleston moved for reconsideration, which was denied.³

Eggleston appeals, arguing the exhaustion doctrine does not apply here and, therefore, the district court improperly dismissed his § 1983 and state law tort claims. He further argues the district court improperly dismissed his request for punitive damages against Stuart.

DISCUSSION

Standard of review

A dismissal for failure to state a claim pursuant to NRCP 12(b)(5) is reviewed de novo. Buzz Stew, LLC v. City of N. Las Vegas, 124 Nev. 224, 227-28, 181 P.3d 670, 672 (2008). A decision to dismiss a complaint under NRCP 12(b)(5) is rigorously reviewed on appeal with all alleged facts in the complaint presumed true and all inferences drawn in favor of the complainant. Id.

Eggleston was not required to exhaust his administrative remedies before filing a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 civil rights claim in the district court

Eggleston argues that the district court erred by dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 civil rights claim because under Patsy v. Board of Regents, 457 U.S. 496, 102 S.Ct. 2557, 73 L.Ed.2d 172 (1982), he was not required to exhaust the administrative remedies in his DFS case before filing a § 1983⁴ civil rights claim in the district court. Clark County and Stuart counter that Eggleston must first exhaust the administrative remedies in his DFS case under the exhaustion doctrine because his § 1983 claim is a procedural due process claim, which is an exception to Patsy under Zinermon v. Burch, 494 U.S. 113, 110 S.Ct. 975, 108 L.Ed.2d 100 (1990).⁵ We conclude that Eggleston was not required to exhaust his administrative remedies before bringing his § 1983 claim in the district court.

"Ordinarily, before availing oneself of district court relief from an agency decision, one must first exhaust available administrative remedies." Malecon Tobacco, LLC v. State, Dep't of Taxation, 118 Nev. 837, 839, 59 P.3d 474, 475-76 (2002). "[F]ailure to do so renders the controversy nonjusticiable." Allstate Ins. Co. v. Thorpe , 123 Nev. 565, 571, 170 P.3d 989, 993 (2007). "The exhaustion doctrine gives administrative agencies an opportunity to correct mistakes and conserves judicial resources, so its purpose is valuable; requiring exhaustion of administrative remedies often resolves disputes without the need for judicial involvement." Id. at 571-72, 170 P.3d at 993-94.

However, a party is generally not required to exhaust state administrative remedies before bringing a civil rights claim in federal or state court under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.⁶ Patsy, 457 U.S. at 516, 102 S.Ct. 2557 ; Felder v. Casey, 487 U.S. 131, 146-47, 108 S.Ct. 2302, 101 L.Ed.2d 123 (1988). Section 1983 ’s purpose is "to interpose the federal courts between the States and the people, as guardians...