Godboldo v. Cnty. of Wayne

MARYANNE GODBOLDO, AG-H, a Minor by her Next Friend,MARYANNE GODBOLDO, Plaintiff, v. COUNTY OF WAYNE, WAYNE COUNTY CIRCUIT COURTA/K/A MICHIGAN'S THIRD JUDICIAL CIRCUIT COURT, governmental entities,MIA WENK, LESLIE KIM SMITH, MARSHA HERST, VIKKI KAPANOWSKI,in their individual and official capacities, Defendants.

Case No. 14-11065

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION

October 2, 2015

Honorable Laurie J. Michelson

Magistrate Judge Michael J. Hluchaniuk

OPINION AND ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART MIA WENK'S MOTION TO DISMISS [16] AND GRANTING MARSHA HERST, VIKKI KAPANOWSKI, LESLIE KIM SMITH, AND WAYNE COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT'S MOTION TO DISMISS [17]

Plaintiffs Maryanne Godboldo and her minor daughter, "AG-H," bring this suit for money damages pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and Michigan state law. The case arises from a 2011 incident in which AG-H was removed from Godboldo's custody after Godboldo discontinued the administration of prescription anti-psychotic medication. Godboldo alleges that Defendant Mia Wenk, a Wayne County social worker, presented a deficient petition for protective custody to Defendant Marsha Herst, a probation officer, who reviewed the petition and stamped the signature of Defendant Judge Leslie Kim Smith. Defendant Wayne County Circuit Court's alleged practice of "rubber-stamping" child custody orders without review by the presiding judge set off a chain of events wherein police officers arrived at the Godboldoresidence and removed AG-H after a standoff. AG-H was delivered to non-party the Hawthorne Center, where she allegedly suffered abuse before being returned to her parents eight months later.

Based on these events, Plaintiffs assert five counts. First, they allege that Judge Smith and Wayne County Circuit Court "authorized and tolerated an institutional practice which allowed CPS workers to obtain orders for custody of minor children that circumvented a judge's review for the legal sufficiency for the order" in violation of "due process." (Compl. at ¶¶ 36-38.) Second, they allege that Judge Smith, Herst, and Herst's supervisor, Vikki Kapanowski (collectively, the "Court Defendants"), violated the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments by tolerating the practice alleged in Count I. (Compl. at ¶¶ 39-41.) Third, they allege that Wenk deprived them of rights under the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments. (Compl. at ¶¶ 42-44.) Fourth, they allege that all Defendants deprived them of unspecified statutory and constitutional rights under Michigan state law. Fifth, they assert a claim of intentional infliction of emotional distress against Wenk.

Now before the Court are motions to dismiss "and/or" for summary judgment by Wenk (Dkt. 16) and the Court Defendants (Dkt. 17). The Court will treat these pre-discovery motions as motions to dismiss, as many of the exhibits are not public records and are not referenced in the Complaint, and Godboldo's former counsel averred that he did not have access to them. Smith, Herst, and Kapanowski are entitled to absolute immunity on all claims, and the Wayne County Circuit Court is not a proper defendant to a § 1983 claim. However, at this stage of the case, Mia Wenk is entitled to absolute immunity only for her actions in filing the petition with the family court and her other arguments do not completely dispose of the claims against her. Therefore, theCourt will GRANT the Court Defendants' motion and will GRANT IN PART AND DENY IN PART Wenk's motion.

I. LEGAL STANDARD

To withstand a motion to dismiss, Plaintiff's Complaint "must allege 'enough facts to state a claim of relief that is plausible on its face.'" Traverse Bay Area Int. Sch. Dist. v. Mich. Dep't of Educ., 615 F.3d 622, 627 (6th Cir. 2010) (quoting Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). Facial plausibility means that "the complaint has to 'plead[] factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant[s are] liable for the misconduct alleged.'" Ohio Police & Fire Pension Fund v. Std. & Poor's Fin. Servs., LLC, 700 F.3d 829, 835 (6th Cir. 2012) (alteration in original) (quoting Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009)).

The court must "accept all well-pleaded factual allegations as true and construe the complaint in the light most favorable to plaintiffs." Bennet v. MIS Corp., 607 F.3d 1076, 1091 (6th Cir. 2010).

In addition to the Complaint, the Court may consider "any exhibits attached thereto, public records, items appearing in the record of the case and exhibits attached to defendant's motion to dismiss so long as they are referred to in the Complaint and are central to the claims contained therein." Bassett v. NCAA, 528 F.3d 426, 430 (6th Cir. 2008); see also New Eng. Health Care Emps. Pension Fund v. Ernst & Young, LLP, 336 F.3d 495, 501 (6th Cir. 2003). However, "if matters outside the pleading are presented to and not excluded by the court, the motion shall be treated as one for summary judgment and disposed of as provided in Rule 56, and all parties shall be given reasonable opportunity to present all material made pertinent tosuch a motion by Rule 56." Wright v. Holbrook, 794 F.2d 1152, 1156 (6th Cir. 1986) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)).

II. ALLEGATIONS OF THE COMPLAINT

In late 2009, Plaintiff Maryanne Godboldo began to notice behavioral changes in her then-eleven-year-old daughter, Plaintiff "AG-H." (Compl. ¶ 12.) Concerned, Godboldo sought treatment for AG-H at the New Oakland Child, Adolescent and Family Center and Children's Center ("the Center"). (Id. at ¶¶ 13-15.) Physicians there prescribed Risperdol, an anti-psychotic medication, and informed Godboldo that "she could withdraw her consent for the administration of the drug at any time." (Id. at ¶ 15.)

Soon after AG-H began taking Risperdol, Godboldo noticed side effects, including AG-H's thirty-two pound weight gain, "extreme behavioral changes," and agitation. (Id. at ¶ 16.) Godboldo complained to the Center and informed the staff that she was withdrawing her consent for the administration of the drug. (Id. at ¶ 16, 17.) Shortly thereafter, Godboldo began a "weaning process" to avoid any effects of abruptly stopping the administration of the drug. (Id.) In the meantime, the Center reported Godboldo's decision to stop the drug to Child Protective Services ("CPS"). (Id. at ¶ 18.)

CPS assigned the case to Mia Wenk. (Id. at ¶ 19.) Wenk sought a Permanent Placement Conference ("PPC"). (Id. at ¶ 18.) The conference was held on March 23, 2011. (Id. at ¶ 21.) Godboldo did not attend. (See Dkt. 22-1, Pet.) The next day, on March 24, 2011, Wenk prepared a Petition to Take Child into Protective Custody regarding AG-H and presented it to Defendant Marsha Herst, a probation officer in the Wayne County Circuit Court. (Id. at ¶ 21.) Plaintiffs allege that Herst "used Judge Smith's stamp to authorize" an "Order to Take Child intoProtective Custody" without any review by Judge Smith herself. (Id.) This was a common practice at the court. (Id.)

Wenk attached the Petition to her Motion to Dismiss. (Pet.) The Order bears the signature of "Leslie Kim Smith." (Id. at 2.) It provides as follows:

Maryanne Godboldo has numerous CPS referrals in the last year regarding medical neglect of her daughter, [AG-H]. [AG-H] is diagnosed with Psychosis NOS and is prescribed Risperdol, but the mother refuses to give the medication to her daughter. Mother is in denial about her daughter's mental health issue and believes that her daughter is delusional, severely psychotic, and completely out of touch from reality due to the immunization the child received in 2009. . . . PPC was held on 3/23/11 at SCCFS. Maryanne Godboldo was notified on 3/21/11 of the PPC but did not show.

(Id.) The Court Defendants say that the alleged "rubber-stamping" procedure was explicitly authorized by Michigan statute, the Michigan Court Rules, and the Wayne County Circuit Court at the time the incident occurred. See Mich. Comp. Laws § 712A.10 (2011); Mich. Ct. R. 3.963 (2011).

After the order was stamped, Wenk arrived at Godboldo's home with several Detroit police officers. (Compl. at ¶ 22.) Godboldo refused to allow the officers to enter. (Id. at ¶ 25.) Following a standoff, the officers forcefully entered the home and Wenk retrieved AG-H. (Id. at ¶ 27.) Godboldo was arrested (and remained in custody for four days) and AG-H was transported to the Hawthorne Center. (Id. at ¶¶ 31-32.) The Complaint alleges that while at the Hawthorne Center, AG-H "was assaulted and battered and administered unconsented to psychotropic and other medication and deprived of her prosthetic leg in order to restrict her mobility as a punishment." (Id. at ¶ 32.) AG-H was returned to her parents on December 12, 2011. (Id. at ¶ 35.)

The Defendants refer to other events that are relevant to the child custody proceedings in their Motions to Dismiss, but these events and the documentation thereof are not part of theComplaint. On April 6, 2011, Family Court Referee Leslie Graves signed a "Petition Child Protective Proceedings" for temporary court wardship for AG-H. The Court Defendants attached the Petition to the Complaint. (Dkt. 17-2, Order.) Judge Lynne Pierce reviewed the final Petition and affirmed its findings. (Dkt. 17-7.) Godboldo unsuccessfully challenged this decision before both Judge Pierce and the Michigan Court of Appeals. (Dkts. 17-11; In re Godboldo-Hakim, Nos. 305858; 308404, 2012 WL 2914260 (Mich. App. July 17, 2012).

Plaintiffs filed suit in this Court on March 12, 2014. (Dkt. 1.) Plaintiffs assert five claims: a due process violation through section 1983 against Judge Smith, Wayne County Circuit Court, and Wayne County (Count I); violations of the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments through § 1983 against Judge Smith, Herst, and Kapanowski (Count II); violations of the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments through § 1983 against Wenk (Count III); "Liability under State Law" against Wenk, Herst, and Kapanowski (Count IV)...