Nazario v. Quaintance

Michael David Nazario, Plaintiff,

v. Judge Katherine Quaintance, Karin L. Chedister, Diane Kassler, Deborah Silverstein,and Hennepin County Sheriff Department, Defendants.

Civil No. 12-554 JRT/AJB

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA

Dated: August 3, 2012

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

ON DEFENDANTS' MOTIONS

TO DISMISS

Michael David Nazario, 3233 Central Ave, NE, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55418, pro se plaintiff;

Thomas C. Vasaly, Esq., Minnesota Attorney General's Office, for defendant Judge Katherine Quaintance;

Beth A. Stack, Esq., and Toni A. Beitz, Esq., Hennepin County Attorney's Office, for defendants Karin L. Chedister, Diane Kassler, Deborah Silverstein, and Hennepin County Sheriff Department.

This action is before the court, United States Chief Magistrate Judge Arthur J. Boylan, on Amended Motion to Dismiss of Defendants Karin L. Chedister, Diane Kassler, Deborah Silverstein, and Hennepin County Sheriff Department ("Hennepin County Defendants") [Docket No. 17]; and Defendant Judge Quaintance's Motion to Dismiss Amended Complaint [Docket No. 19]. Hearing on the motions was held on June 18, 2012, at the United States Courthouse, 300 South Fourth Street, Minneapolis, MN 55415. The case has been referred to the magistrate judge for report and recommendation under 28 U.S.C. §636(b)(1). It is the court's determination herein that the motions to dismiss by Judge Katherine Quaintance and the Hennepin County Defendants should be granted and the amended complaint in this matter bedismissed.

Background and Claims

Plaintiff Michael Nazario has filed an amended complaint¹ in which he alleges claims based upon federal jurisdiction as provided under 18 U.S.C. § 96, the Racketeering Influenced Corrupt Organizations Act ("RICO"). Specifically, he asserts RICO jurisdiction under provisions relating to: (1) Extortionate Credit Transactions; (2) Fraud and Related Activity in Connection with Identification Documents; (3) Financial Institution Fraud; (4) Obstruction of Justice; (5) Obstruction of State or Local Law Enforcement; (6) Retaliating Against a Witness, Victim, or an Informant; (7) Peonage, Slavery, and Trafficking in Persons; (8) Interference with Commerce, Robbery, or Extortion; (9) Racketeering; (10) Engaging in Monetary Transactions in Property Derived from Specified Unlawful Activity; (11) Sexual Exploitation of Children; and (12) White Slave Traffic.

The amended complaint states that the averments contained therein relate to federal questions based upon defendants' conduct in a Hennepin County family court case entitled In the Matter of the Welfare of the Children of Joy Nazario, Mother and Michael Nazario, Father, FAM ID No. 323598 Case No. 27-JV-11-7365.² Defendant KatherineQuaintance is the Hennepin County District Court Judge assigned to the case; defendant Karin Chedister is an Assistant Hennepin County Attorney, defendant Diane Kassler is a Hennepin County social worker, and defendant Deborah Silverstein is Kassler's supervisor. The Hennepin County defendants were involved in the underlying child protection matter; and the Hennepin County Sheriff's Department participated in the removal of plaintiff's children from the home. The pleadings do not explicitly state the amount of damages sought from each defendant, but the initial pleading alleges "$3,000,000.00 demonstrable costs and personal injuries damages,"³ and states that "[d]amages in the amount of no less than $10,000,000.00 should be awarded."⁴

CHIPS Proceedings. This action arises out of a petition filed in Hennepin County in August 2011, alleging that plaintiff Michael Nazario's children were in need of protection or services based upon allegations of sexual abuse.⁵ Trial on the matter was held on November 29, 2011, before defendant Hennepin County District Court Judge Katherine Quaintance, and an Order for CHIPS Adjudication and Protective Supervision was issued by Judge Quaintance on December 29, 2011.⁶ The court determined that two of plaintiff's children were in need of protective services.⁷ In January 2012, child protection social worker Diane Kassler submitted an affidavit to the court indicating that the parents, plaintiff Michael Nazarioand his wife, Joy Nazario, were not being cooperative and were not in compliance with case plan conditions.⁸ Judge Quaintance thereafter issued Findings and Conclusions and Order dated January 11, 2012, therein placing two of the plaintiff's children with the Hennepin County Human Services and Public Health Department and scheduling further hearing on the matter.⁹ Meanwhile, the Hennepin County Sheriff's Department undertook the task of locating the Nazario family, including plaintiff, his wife and the two children. Mr. and Mrs. Nazario were found on January 18, 2012, but the children were not present and the parents refused to disclose their location.¹⁰ The parents were arrested on January 19, 2012, on charges of depriving another of custodial rights and were jailed at that time.¹¹ Mrs. Nazario revealed the children's location at her initial appearance in the criminal matter.¹²

A hearing was held on the child protection matter on February 1, 2012, and additional Findings and Order were issued on February 15, 2012, therein allowing return of the children to the mother's home, but maintaining the order for protection as to plaintiff Michael Nazario.¹³ The child protection action was again before Judge Quaintance for hearing on March6, 2012.¹⁴ Findings of Fact and an Order were issued on March 19, 2012, for further hearing on May 21, 2012. Finally, by way of letter dated June 18, 2012, with an attached exhibit,¹⁵ this court was advised that criminal proceedings with respect to the mother had been resolved by Alford plea, the Hennepin County Attorney had declined to prosecute plaintiff Michael Nazario, and jurisdiction in the CHIPS matter was terminated. Nonetheless, the order for protection as to Mr. Nazario was to remain in effect.¹⁶ There is no record of appeal or request for state court appellate review of court orders or determinations in the Hennepin County child protection action.¹⁷

Meanwhile, plaintiff Michael Nazario commenced this action by complaint filed in federal court on March 2, 2012, therein asserting errors, misconduct, legal malpractice, discrimination, and retaliation by defendants, primarily Judge Quaintance, in regards to the CHIPS proceedings and the arrests of the plaintiff and his wife. Defendant Katherine Quaintance now moves for dismissal of claims for monetary damages on judicial immunity grounds, and she further asserts the bar against review of challenges to state court decisions under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine. The individual Hennepin County defendants likewise move for dismissal pursuant to the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, and they assert that prosecutorial immunity precludes money damages claims. The Hennepin County Sheriff's Department contends that it is not a subject to suit as a separate entity, and all defendants argue that thecomplaint fails to state a cause of action for which relief may the granted.

Rule 12 Standard of Review

A complaint that is being challenged on motion to dismiss pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) does not need to contain detailed factual allegations to survive the motion, but "[a] pleading that offers 'labels and conclusions' or 'a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do.'" Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 1949 (2009) (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555, 127 S.Ct. 1955 (2007)). A complaint must contain sufficient facts to state a claim that is not merely conceivable, but rather, is plausible. Twombly, 127 S.Ct. at 1974. When reviewing a motion to dismiss, the claim must be liberally construed, assuming the facts alleged therein to be true and drawing all reasonable inferences from those facts in the plaintiff's favor. Twombly, 127 S.Ct. at 1964-65. A complaint should not be dismissed simply because a court is doubtful that the plaintiff will be able to prove all of the factual allegations contained therein. Id. Accordingly, a well-pleaded complaint will survive a motion to dismiss even where the likelihood of recovery appears remote. Id. at 1965. However, a plaintiff cannot rely upon general and conclusory allegations to survive a Rule 12(b)(6) motion. Martin v. Sargent, 780 F.2d 1334, 1337 (8th Cir. 1985).

When matters outside the pleadings are presented with a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, and those matters are not excluded by the court, the motion should be treated as a Fed. R. Civ. P. 56 motion for summary judgment. However, on a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, the court may consider extraneous materials that are outside the complaint if such materials are "necessarily embraced" by the pleadings. Piper Jaffray v. Nat'l Union Fire Insur. Co., 967 F.Supp. 1148, 1152 (D. Minn. 1997) (citing Vizenor v. Babbitt, 927 F.Supp. 1193, 1198 (D.Minn. 1996)). See also Parnes v. Gateway 2000, Inc., 122 F.3d 539, 546 n.9 (8th Cir. 1997). Materials which are necessarily embraced by pleadings may include copies of underlying pleadings and documents incorporated by reference. Piper Jaffray, 967 F. Supp at 1152. In addition, materials which are public record may be considered in deciding a motion to dismiss. E.E.O.C. v. Am. Home Prod. Corp., 199 F.R.D. 620, 627 (N.D. Iowa 2001) (citing Missouri ex rel. Nixon v. Coeur D'Alene Tribe, 164 F.3d 1102, 1107 (8th Cir. 1999)). On the other hand, "written or oral evidence in support of or in opposition to the pleading that provides some substantiation for and does not merely reiterate what is said in the pleading," may be construed as "matters outside the pleadings," requiring treatment of the motion as one for summary judgment. Hamm v. Rhone-Poulenc Rorer Pharm., Inc., 187 F.3d 941, 948 (8th Cir. 1999).

In support of their respective motions to dismiss, defendant Quaintance has submitted the Declaration of John Betzler and the...