Ward v. Murphy

330 F.Supp.2d 83

John WARD Plaintiff, v. Robert MURPHY, et al., Defendants.

No. CIV.3:01CV01908(AVC).

United States District Court, D. Connecticut.

August 16, 2004.

John Ward, Danbury, CT, pro se.

Carolyn Signorelli, John Essex Tucker, Attorney General's Office, Hartford, CT, Benjamin K. Potok, Garie J. Mulcahey, Heidi M. Cilano, Bai, Pollock, Blueweiss & Mulcahey, Bridgeport, CT, for Defendants.

RULING ON THE DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

COVELLO, District Judge.

This is an action for damages and injunctive relief, which alleges, inter alia, that various employees of the Connecticut Department of Children and Families ("DCF") violated the plaintiff's rights as secured by the Fourth, Fifth, Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution when they unlawfully removed the plaintiff's minor child from his custody. It is brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 ("ADA"), 42 U.S.C. § 12101, and common law tenets concerning intentional infliction of emotional distress, defamation, slander and false imprisonment. The defendants, the DCF, Kristine Ragaglia, Ralph Arnone, Robert Murphy, Susan Liquindoli and Roger Lima, have filed the within motion for summary judgment (document no. 152), pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 56, contending that the plaintiff has failed to raise an issue of material fact and therefore that they are entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

The issues presented are: (1) whether the defendants are entitled to qualified immunity with regard to the causes of action that allege a violation of the plaintiff's procedural due process rights; (2) whether the plaintiff has raised an issue of fact with regard to the causes of action that allege a violation of the plaintiff's fourth amendment rights; (3) whether the defendants are entitled to qualified immunity with regard to the causes of action that allege a violation of the plaintiff's fifth and sixth amendment rights; (4) whether the eleventh amendment bars the causes of action brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 asserted against the DCF and the individual defendants in their official capacities; (5) whether the plaintiff has standing to seek prospective injunctive relief; (6) whether the plaintiff has raised an issue of fact that the defendants impermissibly discriminated against him on the basis of his disability in violation of the ADA; and (7) if judgment is granted in favor of the defendants on the causes of action brought pursuant to federal law, should the court exercise discretion over the causes of action brought pursuant to state law.

For the reasons that hereinafter follow, the court concludes that: (1) because the defendants actions were objectively reasonable, the defendants are entitled to qualified immunity with regard to the causes of action alleging a violation of the plaintiff's procedural due process rights; (2) the plaintiff has failed to raise an issue of fact with regard to the causes of action alleging a violation of the plaintiff's fourth amendment rights; (3) because the plaintiff has failed to allege a constitutional violation, the defendants are entitled to qualified immunity with regard to the causes of action that purportedly allege a violation of the plaintiff's fifth and sixth amendment rights; (4) the eleventh amendment bars the causes of action brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and asserted against the DCF and the individual defendants in their official capacities; (5) because the plaintiff has failed to allege an injury that is sufficiently real and immediate, the plaintiff lacks standing to seek prospective injunctive relief; (6) the plaintiff has failed to raise an issue of fact that the defendants impermissibly discriminated against him on the basis of his disability in violation of the ADA; and (7) having concluded that judgment should be granted in favor of the defendants with regard to the causes of action brought pursuant to federal law, the court declines to exercise its discretion over the state law causes of action and dismisses those claims without prejudice.

Consequently, the defendants' motion for summary judgment (document no. 152) is GRANTED.

FACTS:

Examination of the complaint, pleadings, Local Rule 56(a) statements, and exhibits accompanying the motion for summary judgment, and the responses thereto, discloses the following undisputed, material facts.

On October 6, 1999, Patricia Maruscak gave birth to a baby girl, D. W.,¹ at the Danbury Hospital. John Ward, the plaintiff, is the acknowledged father of D.W. Dr. Eitan Kilchevsky was D.W.'s attending physician while she was a patient at the Danbury Hospital.

During D.W.'s hospital stay, she lost five to eight percent of her body weight and became jaundiced. On October 8, 1999, Kilchevsky discharged D.W. from the hospital. However, because of D.W.'s medical condition and Kilchevsky's assessment that "the mother could benefit from post-discharge support," Kilchevsky referred the family to the Danbury Visiting Nurse Association ("VNA").² At the time of discharge, Ward agreed "to accept the VNA service and a visit was scheduled for October 9, 1999."

On October 10, 1999, the VNA informed Kilchevsky that Ward had cancelled the scheduled visit. Based on the fact that D.W. had lost weight and was jaundiced while at the hospital, Kilchevsky "felt strongly that the baby should be seen." Therefore, Kilchevsky requested that the matter be referred to the Connecticut Department of Children and Families ("DCF"), and "requested that they, along with a[VNA] nurse, go out to the home." On October 10, 1999, one Angela Crooke, an employee of Danbury Hospital, reported Kilchevsky's concerns about the welfare and safety of D.W. to the DCF.

A DCF employee, one Sandra Liquindoli, began an investigation of Crooke's report. Based on her investigation, Liquindoli learned that Ward had cancelled the VNA home visit and that he had provided no explanation for the cancellation. Liquindoli also learned that Maruscak, D.W.'s mother, was "very slow and that ... [Ward] was overbearing and would not allow the mother to speak."

On October 10, 1999, Liquindoli, accompanied by a VNA nurse and two members of the Danbury Police Department ("DPD"), went to Ward's apartment to "investigate the situation and make sure that the child was safe in light of the concerns expressed by the ... [hospital.]" Ward, who was home at the time of the visit, refused to answer the door, stated that the police had no legal right to open the door, and refused to permit the child to be examined. In addition, Ward refused to permit Liquindoli, the nurse, or the police to speak with the mother of the child.

Ward eventually agreed to take the child to the Danbury Hospital and permit an examination of D.W. by Kilchevsky. Liquindoli called Kilchevsky to inform him of the situation. Kilchvesky informed Liquindoli that he would examine the child. Kilchevsky also told Liquindoli that the child should be examined because "untreated jaundice can lead to dehydration and brain damage." Further, according to Kilchevsky, "the mother was not capable of caring for the child as she appeared to be extremely slow and might not be able to determine if the child was in distress."

Ward thereafter stated that he was no longer willing to take his child to the hospital. Ward did, however, permit the nurse to conduct a cursory examination of D.W. in the hallway outside of his apartment. Based on the examination, it was "Liquindoli's understanding that the child did not require any medical intervention at that time." The nurse informed Kilchevsky of the status of the baby, noting that, although dressed at the time that she was weighed, the baby appeared to have gained weight. Also the child did not appear to be jaundiced.

Nevertheless, Kilchevsky felt that, "given the fact that this was a young infant, who had experienced weight loss and jaundice, which are conditions that could lead to complications if the infant was not properly monitored and cared for, ... it was imperative that [the child] be medically seen and that DCF remain involved to ensure [that] the appropriate follow-up was obtained by the parents." Kilchevsky communicated this concern to Liquindoli on October 10, 1999. Liquindoli thereafter spoke with her supervisor and reported what had occurred.

On October 12, 1999, DCF personnel assigned Robert Murphy, an investigative social worker employed by the DCF, to perform a follow up investigation on the report of suspected child neglect in connection with D.W. As part of his initial investigation, Murphy learned of Kilchevsky's concern regarding the possible effects of untreated jaundice, as well as his concern regarding the mother's capacity to notice warning signs of possible distress. Murphy also learned that, on October 7, 1999, one Judy Mills, a licensed clinical social worker at Danbury Hospital, had made a report of suspected child neglect with regard to D.W. In her report, Mills stated:

[M]uch difficulty [with] resistance to see social worker prior to [birth] at Women's Health Center ... [with] John [Ward] speaking for [mother], answering questions asked to her, showing signs that [Ward] was controlling and manipulating [mother]. Plans changed regarding living alone or together several times, infant wanted by father and concern by staff [regarding whether mother] was being compliant against her wishes.... [C]oncern [that Ward] appears paranoid suspicious, and refuses to let social worker speak to mother.... Difficult communications with staff; many problems. [Ward] [r]efused to sign forms in hospital, i.e., condition of admission, until several people involved explaining especially around outside services. Agree to Health Families prenatally and now refuses Health [Families]. Now is agreeing to MD order to follow up visit of VNA and concern will refuse their entry to check on infant after discharge. The intent appears that he will be...