Malenko v. Anderson

IGOR MALENKO, et al. Plaintiffs,

v.STEPHANIE ANDERSON, as District Attorney for Cumberland County, Defendant.

Docket no. 2:12-cv-49-GZS

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MAINE

Dated: May 23, 2012

ORDER ON MOTION TO DISMISS

Before the Court is Defendant's Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 7) Plaintiff's Amended Complaint and Demand for Jury Trial ("Amended Complaint," ECF No. 5). As explained herein, the Court GRANTS Defendant's Motion.

I. LEGAL STANDARD

"To survive a [Rule 12(b)(6)] motion to dismiss, a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to 'state a claim for relief that is plausible on its face.'" Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting Bell Atlantic v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). In considering the merits of a motion to dismiss, the Court must accept as true all well-pleaded factual allegations in the complaint and draw all reasonable inferences in Plaintiff's favor. Gargano v. Liberty Intern. Underwriters, Inc., 572 F.3d 45, 48 (1st Cir. 2009). The Court must examine the factual content of the complaint and determine whether those facts support a reasonable inference "that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged." Iqbal, 556 U.S. 678. While "detailed factual allegations" are not necessary, Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555, the complaint must "contain sufficient factual matter ... to state a claim to relief that is plausible onits face." Iqbal, 556 U.S. 678 (quoting Twombly, 555 U.S. at 570) (internal quotations omitted). The complaint must include "factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged." Id. "If the factual allegations in the complaint are too meager, vague, or conclusory to remove the possibility of relief from the realm of mere conjecture, the complaint is open to dismissal." Haley v. City of Boston, 657 F.3d 39, 46 (1st Cir. 2011) (quoting SEC v. Tambone, 597 F.3d 436, 442 (1st Cir. 2010)); see also Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 (stating that the Court need not accept "[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements").

II. FACTUAL BACKGROUND

Plaintiff Igor Malenko brings this case on behalf of himself and his minor child (referred to herein as "M.M.") against Defendant Cumberland County District Attorney Stephanie Anderson. Malenko alleges the following facts, which the Court accepts as true for the purposes of this Motion to Dismiss.

A. The Contentious Custody Dispute

For the past four years, Malenko and his ex-wife, Lori Handrahan, have been engaged in a hotly disputed custody battle over M.M. Pursuant to a state court-issued custody order, dated February 1, 2011, Malenko is M.M.'s custodial parent. During the course of this custody dispute, Handrahan, who suffers from a personality disorder,¹ falsely accused Malenko of abusing their daughter. Attempting to prove that her allegations were true, Handrahan allegedly engaged in the following conduct: forcing M.M. to recite into a recording device false claims of abuse against Malenko; bringing M.M. to Maine Coast Memorial Hospital for unnecessary examinations in an effort to expose evidence of Malenko's abuse; and subjecting M.M. to at leasteighteen separate drug tests at hospitals or clinics in an attempt to find evidence that Malenko was providing illicit drugs to M.M. Malenko also alleges that Handrahan repeatedly made false statements that Malenko sexually and physically assaulted M.M. and provided M.M. with illicit drugs. However, neither the Maine Department of Health and Human Services ("DHHS") nor any court have ever substantiated these claims. Handrahan has also contacted state and federal agencies claiming that Malenko is abusing M.M. Moreover, while Handrahan has filed several complaints for protection from abuse, each complaint has been dismissed. As a result of Handrahan's erratic behavior, M.M. has been dismissed from several day care facilities.

In April 2011, during M.M.'s weekend visitation with Handrahan, Handrahan took M.M. to Washington, D.C. and did not return M.M. to Malenko for eighteen days. Handrahan finally returned M.M. to Malenko after he contacted the FBI to report that M.M. was missing. As a result of Handrahan's behavior, in the spring of 2011 Malenko filed the following motions in state court: (1) a motion to modify parental rights, seeking to give Malenko sole rights and responsibilities over M.M.; (2) a complaint for protection from abuse on behalf of M.M., claiming that Handrahan was emotionally abusing M.M.; and (3) a motion for physical custody of M.M., following Handrahan's refusal to bring M.M. back from Washington, D.C.²

In response to Malenko's motion, the state court awarded Malenko authority "to make all final decisions regarding M.M." (See Amd. Compl. ¶ 9.) Since May 10, 2011, Malenko has exercised this authority to prohibit Handrahan from having any unsupervised contact with M.M. In fact, between May 10, 2011 and January 27, 2012, Handrahan had no contact whatsoever with her daughter. Meanwhile, beginning in November 2011, Handrahan began an internet campaignwhich posted particularly personal information about M.M. on several websites, including M.M.'s date of birth, her medical records, her address, and explicit photographs of M.M. on an examination table at Maine Coast Memorial Hospital. Handrahan's website also stated that she would take M.M. out of the country if she ever got custody of M.M.³ Malenko filed a motion in state court to remove this content from the internet.⁴

B. The Events of January 27, 2012

On the morning of January 27, 2012, Malenko's current wife, Ms. Cvetkoska, took M.M. to daycare, where she had been enrolled since September 2011. Worried that Handrahan might jeopardize M.M.'s enrollment, Malenko never disclosed the name and location of M.M.'s daycare to Handrahan. Nevertheless, following their arrival at the daycare, as Cvetkoska and M.M. walked from the daycare parking lot to the building, Handrahan emerged from a car, ran towards Cvetkoska and M.M., and grabbed ahold of M.M. in an attempt to pull her away from Cvetkoska. M.M. resisted and clung to Cvetkoska's clothes while screaming that she did not want to go with Handrahan. Other parents with children at the daycare observed the spectacle and formed a semi-circle around Handrahan so that she could not leave with M.M. One parent called the police. Shortly thereafter, two police officers arrived from the Cape Elizabeth Police Department.

Prior to the officers' arrival, Handrahan succeeded in taking M.M. away from Cvetkoska and refused to release her. After arriving on the scene, the officers - Sgt. Andrew Steidl and Patrolman Aaron Webster - threatened to arrest Handrahan unless she released M.M. Handrahan complied and M.M. was taken into the daycare, which subsequently went into"lockdown" mode. At some point Malenko arrived, and he joined M.M. and Cvetkoska inside the daycare building. After shuttling between Handrahan in her car and Malenko in the daycare building, Sgt. Steindl determined that the dispute was a civil custody dispute rather than a criminal matter. Sgt. Steindl sent Handrahan on her way and Malenko and Cvetkoska left the daycare to file an assault complaint with the Cape Elizabeth Police Department. Later, Malenko and Cvetkoska also filed complaints in state court against Handrahan. Cvetkoska filed a complaint for protection from harassment and Malenko filed a complaint for protection from abuse on behalf of himself and M.M. The state court judge ruled on the motions at approximately 4:15 p.m. that afternoon, granting Cvetkoska a temporary protection from harassment order, but denying Malenko and M.M. temporary relief.

At approximately 1:35 p.m., following the episode at the daycare and presumably while Malenko and Cvetkoska were dealing with the legal issues discussed above, District Attorney Anderson called Sgt. Steindl regarding the incident with Handrahan at M.M.'s daycare.⁵ Sgt. Steindl shared what he knew about the incident and noted that under his interpretation of the custody order governing custody of M.M. Malenko had the right to make all important decisions affecting M.M. Anderson questioned this conclusion and told Sgt. Steindl that she would "pull the court order and review it with the judge." (See Amd. Compl. ¶¶ 67-68.)

At approximately 2:39 p.m., Anderson called Sgt. Steindl and informed him that she had spoken with Judge Moskowitz, the judge who had issued the custody order. According to Anderson, Judge Moskowitz told her that Malenko had no control over visitation and thatHandrahan had the legal right to see M.M. that weekend.⁶ Anderson also told Sgt. Steindl "that M.M. can be turned over to Handrahan." (Id. ¶ 71.) Sgt. Steindl asked Anderson whether Judge Moskowitz had issued any new written orders in the case and Anderson replied that Judge Moskowitz had not issued any new written orders. Sgt. Steindl stated that he would drive to M.M.'s daycare to see if she was still there, and Anderson stated that she would contact Handrahan's attorney.

Sgt. Steindl then spoke with Chief Williams and subsequently with Lt. Cook of the South Portland Police Department ("SPPD") about the custody dispute. Lt. Cook informed Sgt. Steindl that SPPD knew about the custody dispute and was aware of allegations that Handrahan had posted explicit pictures of M.M. on the internet.

At approximately 4:30 p.m., Malenko and Cvetkoska returned to the daycare to retrieve M.M. When they arrived at the daycare they encountered several police cruisers and Sgt. Steindl, who informed Malenko that his conversations with Anderson had persuaded him that Malenko was required to turn M.M. over to Handrahan for weekend visitation.⁷ Sgt. Steindl also told Malenko that he had to collect M.M. and turn her over to Handrahan because he had been instructed to do so by Anderson. Sgt. Steindl then spoke with Malenko's attorney over the telephone. Sgt....