Royal v. Payne

ALICIA NAILIA ROYAL, Plaintiff, v. MYIKELL PAYNE, et al., Defendants.

No. 1:18-CV-123-HAB

United States District Court, N.D. Indiana, Fort Wayne Division

January 6, 2022

OPINION AND ORDER

HOLLY A. BRADY UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE

Plaintiff alleges that Defendants, all representatives of the Indiana Department of Child Services (“DCS”), violated her rights during an investigation that led to the temporary removal of her children.^[1] Defendants have moved for summary judgment, and that motion is fully briefed. (ECF Nos. 94 100, 111).

I. Factual Background

Plaintiff is a single mother of two daughters, M.R. and T.L. DCS' first involvement with the family was in early December 2017 when M.R. was seen in the emergency room. M.R. told emergency room personnel that she had been in a fight with Plaintiff and medical records noted scratches on M.R.'s chest. This emergency room visit prompted a report to DCS of children in need of services, Defendant Myikell Payne (“Payne”) was assigned to investigate.

The next evening, Defendant Danielle Baldwin (“Baldwin”), the on-call DCS investigator, received a call for immediate assistance from the Fort Wayne Police Department. Officers told Baldwin that Plaintiff had been arrested for battery of a dependent and had been taken to the Allen County Jail. Baldwin immediately reported to Plaintiff's home.

After arriving at the home, Baldwin spoke with police officers on the scene and then interviewed M.R. and T.L. The children told Baldwin that M.R. and Plaintiff had been in an argument. M.R. said that Plaintiff threatened her, pushed her down onto a couch, and hit her repeatedly. T.L. saw the fight and called the police. Baldwin reported that M.R. had a cut on her chest and a “raised red bump” underneath her lip.

With Plaintiff in jail, the children were asked if there was a relative with whom they could stay. The children said they could stay with their grandmother, Vanya Royal (“Vanya”). Baldwin stated that she called Vanya and Vanya declined to care for the children. Instead, Vanya told Baldwin to call Plaintiff's cousin, Travis Royal (“Travis”). Travis was called and agreed to take the children. Baldwin took the children to Travis' home, confirmed the suitability of Travis and his wife, and left the children in Travis' care.

For her part, Vanya denies that this call ever occurred. Nor did Baldwin record the call in her written report of the investigation. That report, and Plaintiff's jail intake report, stated that Plaintiff provided Travis' name. Adding to the confusion, Plaintiff denies telling anyone that Travis should care for the children.

Plaintiff was released from jail the next day and met with Payne to discuss M.R. and T.L. During the meeting, Payne stated that Plaintiff told him that the argument with M.R. began after Plaintiff found a bag of M.R.'s boyfriend's clothes in M.R.'s room. Plaintiff told Payne that there was a “tussle” over the bag and Plaintiff sat on M.R. to stop M.R. from striking Plaintiff. Plaintiff denies making these statements.

Four days after Plaintiff's arrest, DCS filed a verified child in need of services (“CHINS”) petition in the Allen Superior Court alleging that M.R. and T.L. were children in need of services. The court held an initial hearing the next day. Plaintiff attended the hearing. Following this hearing, the court ordered that the children should remain in Travis' care. This hearing was the end of Payne and Baldwin's involvement in this case. The case was transferred to Defendant Selma Cakor (“Cakor”) and her supervisor, Defendant Jennifer Fletcher (“Fletcher”).

A detention hearing was held in the CHINS case one week later. During the hearing, the court noted that all charges against Plaintiff had been dropped. The Court also noted that Travis and his wife had requested that the children be removed from their care because of conflicts with Plaintiff after the placement. At the end of the hearing, the court ordered that T.L. be returned to Plaintiff but declined to return M.R. Plaintiff identified her uncle, Nakia Royal (“Nakia”), as a potential caregiver for M.R. Nakia did not want to care for M.R., however, so she was returned to Travis.

Over the next several months, Plaintiff claims that she experienced a “lack of cooperation from Defendants and almost complete disregard for her parental concerns.” (ECF No. 100 at 4). Plaintiff alleges that Cakor and Fletcher ignored her concerns about M.R.'s boyfriend; that they ignored Plaintiff's requests to reschedule lost visitation time; and that they, along with Defendant James Pippen (“Pippen”), ignored her concerns about Travis. Plaintiff also claims that Cakor and Fletcher ignored her requests that M.R. be placed with Vanya. Plaintiff next claims that Fletcher and Pippen refused to remove Cakor from the case despite Cakor's “hostility and lack of concern.” (Id. at 5). Most concerningly, Plaintiff alleges that Baldwin exaggerated M.R.'s injuries, describing a “days-old scratch” as a cut.

In May 2018, Cakor was removed from the case and it was reassigned to Erin Woods (“Woods”). Shortly after Woods took over the case, M.R. was removed from Travis' home (at his request) and placed with Vanya. Two months later, and after Plaintiff had completed court-ordered classes and therapy, M.R. was returned to Plaintiff's care.

II. Legal Discussion

A. The Court has Jurisdiction Over Plaintiff's Claims

Following the briefing on Defendants' motion for summary judgment, the Court asked the parties for briefs discussing the applicability of the Rooker-Feldman doctrine to this case. The parties have fully briefed the issue. (ECF Nos. 113, 115, 116). After reviewing the briefs, the Court determines that the doctrine does not apply.

Only the Supreme Court of the United States may review the judgment of a state court in civil litigation. Claims that directly seek to set aside a state-court judgment are de facto appeals and trigger the Rooker-Feldman doctrine. See Rooker v. Fidelity Tr. Co., 263 U.S. 413 (1923); Sykes v. Cook Cty. Cir. Ct. Prob. Div., 837 F.3d 736, 742 (7th Cir. 2016). Under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, lower federal courts lack jurisdiction to review the decisions of state courts in civil cases. See Gilbert v. Ill. Bd. of Educ., 591 F.3d 896, 900 (7th Cir. 2010) (first citing Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Saudi Basic Indus. Corp., 544 U.S. 280, 283-84 (2005); then citing Johnson v. Orr, 551 F.3d 564, 568 (7th Cir. 2008)). The Rooker-Feldman doctrine prevents lower federal courts from exercising jurisdiction over cases brought by state-court losers challenging state-court judgments rendered before the district court proceedings commenced. Exxon Mobil Corp., 544 U.S. at 284. The Rooker-Feldman doctrine is jurisdictional, and thus it may be raised at any time by the court. See 4901 Corp. v. Town of Cicero, 220 F.3d 522, 527 (7th Cir. 2000).

The Rooker-Feldman doctrine “bars federal claims in two instances. The first involves a plaintiff's request of a federal district court to overturn an adverse state-court judgment. The second, and more difficult instance, involves federal claims that were not raised in state court or do not on their face require review of a state court's decision.” Brown v. Bowman, 668 F.3d 437, 442 (7th Cir. 2012) (citing Taylor v. Fed. Nat'l Mortg. Ass'n, 374 F.3d 529, 532-33 (7th Cir. 2004)).

In the second case, “Rooker-Feldman will act as a jurisdictional bar if those claims are ‘inextricably intertwined' with a state court judgment.” (Id.) (quoting Taylor, 374 F.3d at 533). If the suit does not seek to vacate the judgment of the state court and instead seeks damages for independently unlawful conduct, it is not barred by Rooker-Feldman. See Johnson v. Pushpin Holdings, LLC, 748 F.3d 769, 773 (7th Cir. 2014).

The parties agree that Plaintiff is not asking the Court to overturn a state-court judgment. The issue, then, is whether Plaintiff's claims are “inextricably intertwined” with the state-court decision to remove Plaintiff's children. Jurisprudence in this area is neither clear nor consistent. That said, the Court finds that the modern view of the Rooker-Feldman doctrine is a narrow one. Because Plaintiff does not directly challenge the state-court removal order, Rooker-Feldman does not deprive this Court of jurisdiction.

Milchtein v. Chisholm, 880 F.3d 895 (7th Cir. 2018), sets forth the modern view of the doctrine. There, the plaintiffs alleged that Wisconsin state officials discriminated against them based on religion during court proceedings that ended in two of their children being placed in foster care. The district court, believing that it was being asked to rule on the propriety of the state court's actions, dismissed the case on Rooker-Feldman grounds. Id. at 897.

Recognizing the confusing state of the case law, the Seventh Circuit began its discussion by noting that “[i]t isn't hard to find decisions in this circuit, and elsewhere, that extend the RookerFeldman [sic] doctrine to any arguments that were, or could have been, presented in the state suit, even though the federal plaintiffs do not want the state judgment to be changed, by stating that the arguments are ‘inextricably intertwined' with the judgment.” Id. “More recently, however, the Supreme Court has insisted that the jurisdictional RookerFeldman [sic] doctrine be distinguished from principles of issue and claim preclusion.” Id. As a result, the Seventh Circuit determined that “[t]he vital question . . . is whether the federal plaintiff seeks the alteration of a state court's judgment.” Id. at 898. Because the plaintiffs did not seek an alteration of the state-court order, the Seventh Circuit concluded that Rooker-Feldman did not apply. Id.

Milchtein has since been used by...