Hancock v. Miller

WENDY HANCOCK, individually and as next friend for B.B., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. DEANDRA MILLER, et al., Defendants-Appellees.

Case No. 20-5422

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT

March 26, 2021

NOT RECOMMENDED FOR PUBLICATION

File Name: 21a0165n.06

ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE

OPINION

BEFORE: BATCHELDER, STRANCH, and NALBANDIAN, Circuit Judges.

NALBANDIAN, Circuit Judge. Wendy Hancock's thirty-month dispute with the Tennessee Department of Children's Services ("DCS") culminates in this appeal. Hancock sued seventeen defendants for violating her and her daughter's rights while revoking Hancock's custody of her children. The district court dismissed her complaint. Hancock appeals select claims, but finding no error, we AFFIRM.

I. BACKGROUND

Wendy Hancock lived in Tennessee with her teenage son and twelve-year-old "B.B.," her daughter. August 2018 was an eventful month for the Hancock household. Hancock filed an unruly petition against her son in juvenile court. Meanwhile, he called the police to their home, and the officers found drug paraphernalia in his room. The next day, the son left home after arguing with Hancock, and Hancock reported him missing to the police. Unbeknownst to Hancock, the son's father delivered the son to DCS custody. While there, the son complained of verbal and physical mistreatment, stated he feared going home, showed evidence of abuse, and reported his mother's drug and alcohol use.

The same day that her son lodged his complaints with DCS, police called Hancock and told her to come to the police station to find out about her son. When Hancock did not show up, the police obtained criminal warrants against Hancock for assault and contributing to a minor's delinquency.

In the wake of these events, DCS worker Deandra Miller petitioned the Juvenile Court for an ex parte order against Hancock, alleging that Hancock dealt and abused drugs and physically abused her children. The initial Juvenile Court judge assigned to the petition, Judge Bratton Hale Cook, refused to address it because of his familiarity with Hancock. Under the Tennessee Supreme Court's "Standing Order for the Designation of Substitute Judge," the petition was referred to Judge Michael Collins. Judge Collins issued an ex parte order granting DCS immediate temporary custody of the children ("ex parte order" or "EPO").

But Hancock and B.B. were missing. After two days, Detective James Cornelius retrieved images from Facebook and broadcast them on the national child alert system. He also "pinged" Hancock's cell phone to determine her location. Police arrested Hancock the next day and took B.B. into DCS custody. Detective James Cornelius and Lieutenant Matthew Holmes and interrogated Hancock withoutreading Miranda warnings. Hancock alleges that the government used her statements from this interrogation against her in juvenile and criminal proceedings.

The government charged Hancock with assault and contributing to the delinquency of a minor. DCS placed Hancock's son and B.B. in foster care and arranged for them to receive the HPV vaccine. Hancock entered a "best interest" guilty plea to the contributing to delinquency charge, and the state dismissed the assault charge. And in March 2019, after a three-day hearing, a judge found Hancock's children dependent and neglected. Hancock elected for probation and a supervised parenting plan to regain custody of her children. DCS returned her children home in June.

Hancock sued seventeen defendants based on her belief that the state's employees and the state court had violated her rights in taking custody of her children. She alleged state-law violations as well as federal claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and 42 U.S.C. § 1985. She sought damages and a declaratory judgment. The defendants moved to dismiss all of Hancock's claims, which the district court did. It concluded that it lacked jurisdiction over Hancock's federal claims arising from the ex parte order under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine. And it dismissed the rest of the federal claims on substantive or immunity grounds. Having dismissed her federal claims, it declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims. Hancock now appeals the dismissal of some of her claims as to four of the defendants.

II. DISCUSSION

Hancock argues that the district court made several errors. First, she claims that the district court erred when it denied three motions to exclude and took judicial notice of two state court orders and a DCS document. Second, she argues that her constitutional claims challenging actions taken under the EPO are not barred by the Rooker-Feldman doctrine. Third, she asserts several claims against DCS worker Deandra Miller. And finally, she asserts Fourth and Fifth Amendment claims against Detective Cornelius and Lieutenant Holmes for their interrogation without Miranda warnings and for pinging her cell phone without a warrant. We address and reject each of her arguments below.

We review a Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal de novo, allowing Plaintiff's claims to proceed only if they "contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face." Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (internal quotation marks removed) (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). Claims have "facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged." Id. The complaint need not contain "detailed factual allegations," but "[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action" or "a legal conclusion couched as a factual allegation" will not suffice. Id. (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555); Courser v. Allard, 969 F.3d 604, 615 (6th Cir. 2020).

A. Motions to Exclude

Hancock's first argument is that the district court erred in denying three motions that she made to exclude various court records. She argues that judicialnotice of these documents was inappropriate under Federal Rule of Evidence 201, which permits courts to take notice of certain facts even on a motion to dismiss. We reject her arguments because each of the documents qualified under FRE 201.

Rule 201 outlines the requirements for judicial notice of adjudicative facts. It permits courts to take notice of "a fact that is not subject to reasonable dispute" because it either "is generally known within the trial court's territorial jurisdiction" or "can be accurately and readily determined from sources whose accuracy cannot reasonably be questioned." Fed. R. Evid. 201(b). Under this rule and relevant case law, courts take notice of "developments in related proceedings in other courts of record." Chase Bank USA, N.A. v. City of Cleveland, 695 F.3d 548, 553 n.2 (6th Cir. 2012) (cleaned up).¹ "Specifically, on a motion to dismiss, we may take judicial notice of another court's opinion not for the truth of the facts recited therein, but for the existence of the opinion, which is not subject to reasonable dispute over its authenticity." Winget v. JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A., 537 F.3d 565, 576 (6th Cir. 2008) (citation omitted).

Hancock argues that the district court erred in denying her motion to exclude a juvenile court order, a "permanency plan" by the Department of Children's Services that was filed with the juvenile court, and the Standing Order for the Designation of Substitute Judges by the Tennessee Supreme Court.

The juvenile court order plainly meets the requirements of Rule 201. "Judicial records are a source of 'reasonably indisputable accuracy' when they record some judicial action such as dismissing an action, granting a motion, or finding a fact." United States v. Ferguson, 681 F.3d 826, 834 (6th Cir. 2012) (quoting 21B Charles Alan Wright et al., Federal Practice and Procedure § 5106.4 (2d ed. 2005)).

Hancock posits that the juvenile court order is not appropriate for judicial notice because it is not a "final order" and that the order "is of no force or effect" under Tennessee law because it was "negated by the de novo appeal." (Appellant's Br. at 16.) Her argument fails on its own terms. Tennessee law permits appeal only of a "final order or judgment." § 37-1-159(a). And she did appeal, so the order must have been final.² And in any event, she does not explain how the order not being "final" would affect how we would apply Rule 201.

Hancock also argues that the order is not a "public record" because it is confidential, and she says that it is not central to her claims. These arguments do not address whether judicial notice was appropriate or whether the existence of the order "can be accurately and readily determined from sources whose accuracy cannot reasonably be questioned." Fed. R. Evid. 201(b). Instead, Hancock's arguments go towhether admitting the order converted the 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss into a summary judgment motion. This requires different analysis.

Considering the order was proper and did not convert the motion to dismiss into a motion for summary judgment. When deciding a motion to dismiss, a court ordinarily cannot consider evidence outside the pleadings. Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(d). If a party presents such evidence and the court does not exclude it, then the court must treat the motion to dismiss as a summary judgment motion and allow appropriate discovery. Id. But a court deciding a motion to dismiss may consider "other materials that are integral to the complaint, are public records, or are otherwise appropriate for the taking of judicial notice." Wyser-Pratte Mgmt. Co. v. Telxon Corp., 413 F.3d 553, 560 (6th Cir. 2005); see also McLaughlin v. CNX Gas Co., LLC, 639 F. App'x 296, 298 (6th Cir. 2016) ("We may also consider documents that a defendant attaches to a motion if the documents 'are referred to in the plaintiff's complaint and are central to her claims' without converting the motion to one for...