Lewis v. N.J. Dep't of Children & Families

1

KEVIN LEWIS, Appellant v. NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILIES; THE DIVISION OF CHILD PROTECTION AND PERMANENCY; CARMEN DIAZ-PETTI, as Director of DCP&P/Assistant Commissioner of the New Jersey Department of Children and Families ("DCF"); CHRISTINE NORBUT BEYER, as the Commissioner of DCF; JENNIFER MALLOY, in her individual capacity; ROSEMARY ORTIZ, in her individual capacity; JASMINE PETERS, in her individual capacity; SHEILA WALDERAMA, in her individual capacity; CHINUSO AKUNNE, in his individual capacity; BRIAN EIG, in his individual capacity; STEPHANIE LANASE, in her individual capacity; MELISSA MCCAUSLAND, in her individual capacity; DR. LEE AND ASSOCIATES; LAURALIE INGRAM

No. 22-2782

United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit

July 24, 2023

NOT PRECEDENTIAL

Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit L.A.R. 34.1(a) July 13 2023

On Appeal from the United States District Court For the District of New Jersey (District Court No. 1-21-cv-01671) District Judge: Honorable Noel L. Hillman

Before: SHWARTZ, RESTREPO, and CHUNG, Circuit Judges

OPINION ^[*]

CHUNG CIRCUIT JUDGE.

Kevin Lewis sued New Jersey state agencies and employees ("State Defendants"), medical doctors retained by the state ("Doctors"), and his ex-wife, Lauralie Ingram ("Ms. Ingram") (collectively, "Defendants"). He brought claims against the State Defendants and Doctors under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and the New Jersey Civil Rights Act ("NJCRA"), and against Ms. Ingram under New Jersey common law. The District Court dismissed Lewis's claims against all Defendants. For the reasons that follow, we will affirm the order of the District Court.

I. BACKGROUND^[1]

Lewis's claims arise from the removal of his three children from his custody and the ensuing proceedings related to custody matters. Lewis alleges that on May 17, 2016, the New Jersey Division of Child Protection and Permanency ("DCPP"), a division of the New Jersey Department of Children and Families ("DCF"), removed Lewis's children from his custody, citing safety concerns. Lewis alleges that DCPP then placed his children with Ms. Ingram. Lewis alleges that he was "unable to have any contact with his children whatsoever" for about ninety days, and that although his "contact with his children was finally restored" in August 2016, he was only given ninety minutes of supervised visitation per week. Appendix ("A") 62-63. Even after Lewis's contact with his children was restored, DCPP abuse-and-neglect proceedings against him (the "State Action") remained ongoing in a Superior Court of New Jersey.

Lewis alleges various instances of wrongdoing by many individuals in connection with the removal of his children and the ensuing custody dispute. Among these, he alleges that DCPP arrived at his home and initiated an investigation "without possessing any substantive evidence." Id. at 61. He alleges that DCPP and its employees "continuously attempted to fabricate evidence" and made "false allegations" against him, all while refusing to investigate his own concerns about his children's safety with Ms. Ingram. Id. at 62-63. He alleges that DCPP retained medical doctors to perform psychological evaluations of him and his children, and that the doctors "provided fabricated psychological reports" and made "improper diagnos[e]s." Id. at 65-66. He further alleges that one of the doctors, Dr. Brian Eig ("Dr. Eig"), "inexplicably recommended" that Ms. Ingram take custody of the children, "despite her admission of substantial risk factors for child abuse." Id. at 65. As for Ms. Ingram, he alleges that she made "false allegations of abuse" against him and "coerced and unduly influenced" his children to make false statements to investigators, and that together with a DCPP case worker, she "threatened" the children to make them say that they did not want to live with Lewis. Id. at 62-64.

On May 17, 2018-two years to the day after DCPP removed Lewis's children- Lewis filed a complaint in federal court ("2018 Federal Action") against individuals involved in his children's removal and the dispute over their custody. See Complaint, Lewis v. Diaz-Petti, No. 1-18-cv-09397 (D.N.J. May 17, 2018), ECF No. 1. Defendants included DCPP and DCF employees, medical doctors whom DCPP had retained, and Ms. Ingram. Lewis brought claims against the state employees and doctors under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and the NJCRA alleging constitutional violations, and a claim against Ms. Ingram under New Jersey common law for malicious abuse of process. The defendants moved to dismiss. On April 25, 2019, the District Court dismissed Lewis's claims without prejudice under the Younger abstention doctrine, given that the State Action remained ongoing. Lewis did not move for reconsideration and a stay or move for any other postjudgment relief, nor did he appeal the District Court's dismissal of his complaint.

In September 2019, the State Action concluded.

On February 1, 2021, about sixteen months after the State Action concluded, almost three years after the last wrongful act alleged in the complaint, and over four-and-a-half years after DCPP removed Lewis's children, Lewis filed another complaint in federal court ("2021 Federal Action"). See Complaint, Lewis v. N.J. Dep't Child. &Fams., No. 1-21-cv-01671 (D.N.J. Feb. 1, 2021), ECF No. 1. Lewis filed his 2021 Federal Action under a new docket number, paid a new filing fee, and identified his claim as an "Original Proceeding" in his cover sheet, with no "related case(s)." A154. As in his 2018 Federal Action, Lewis sued the State Defendants and Doctors under Section 1983 and the NJCRA for violating his constitutional rights, and Ms. Ingram for malicious abuse of process. In addition to suing these same defendants, Lewis added the state agencies themselves as defendants. Lewis sought somewhat different relief in 2021 than he had in 2018-for example, adding a request for declaratory judgment that the Defendants' actions were unconstitutional, and removing his 2018 request for injunctive relief. However, the actual factual allegations underlying the 2021 complaint were nearly identical to those he asserted in 2018. The most recent allegation of wrongdoing raised by Lewis took place in April 2018, approximately one month before Lewis filed his original complaint and almost three years before he filed his 2021 complaint.

Dr. Eig moved to dismiss, and argued that Lewis failed to state a claim against him. The other Doctors and the State Defendants then moved to dismiss Lewis's claims, among other defenses, as time-barred (or in the case of Dr. Melissa McCausland, who had already answered Lewis's complaint, for judgment on the pleadings).

On January 26, 2022, the District Court granted Dr. Eig's motion to dismiss, finding that Lewis failed to state a claim against Dr. Eig.

In its January 26 order, the District Court also granted the State Defendants' and other Doctors' motions. The Court decided that it "need not look further than the arguments on the statute of limitations," because Lewis had filed his complaint after the two-year statute of limitations expired. Id. at 29-30.

Ms. Ingram, the one remaining Defendant, then moved for judgment on the pleadings,^[2] arguing that the Court lacked jurisdiction over Lewis's remaining state-law claim against her. On August 23, 2022, the District Court granted her motion.

Lewis timely appealed from both the District Court's January 26, 2022 and August 23, 2022 orders.

II. DISCUSSION^[3]

A. The District Court Correctly Concluded that Lewis's Claims Under Section 1983 and the NJCRA Are Time-Barred

We first address Lewis's appeal from the District Court's January 26, 2022 order dismissing his claims as time-barred.^[4]

The District Court correctly determined that a two-year statute of limitations applies to Lewis's Section 1983 and NJCRA claims. The limitations period for a Section 1983 claim is "governed by the personal injury tort law of the state where the cause of action arose." Kach v. Hose, 589 F.3d 626, 634 (3d Cir. 2009). New Jersey, where Lewis's claims arose, has a two-year statute of limitations for claims of "injury to the person." N.J. Stat. Ann. § 2A:14-2(a); see also Dique v. N.J. State Police, 603 F.3d 181, 185 (3d Cir. 2010) ("[A] section 1983 claim arising in New Jersey has a two-year statute of limitations."). New Jersey's two-year statute of limitations for personal-injury claims also applies to claims under the NJCRA. See Lapolla v. Cnty. of Union, 157 A.3d 458, 464 ( N.J.Super.Ct.App.Div. 2017) ("The statute of limitations for claims under the NJCRA is two years." (citing N.J. Stat. Ann. § 2A:14-2(a))).

The District Court also correctly determined that Lewis filed his 2021 Federal Action more than two years after his causes of action accrued. The accrual date for Section 1983 claims is governed by federal law and begins to run when a "reasonable person should have known" that they had suffered an injury. Kach, 589 F.3d at 634. New Jersey follows a similar rule for the statute of limitations applicable to NJCRA claims. See Caravaggio v D'Agostini, 765 A.2d 182, 187 (N.J. 2001) (limitations period of N.J. Stat. Ann. § 2A:14-2 begins to run when, based on a "reasonable person" test, plaintiff "'knew or should have known' of sufficient facts to start the statute of limitations running" (quoting Baird v. Am. Med. Optics, 713 A.2d 1019, 1028 (N.J. 1998))). Here, Lewis alleges that DCPP removed his children from his custody in May 2016 and restored them to his custody in August 2016. Although Lewis alleges some incidents occurring later, all of the events giving rise to his claims appear to have occurred by May 2018, when Lewis filed the 2018 Federal Action with essentially the same allegations. When Lewis brought this action in ...