Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-91-01368/USCOURTS-ca10-91-01368-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Lawrence Fitzgerald
Appellant
Amy Gertz
Appellee
Katherine Nason
Appellee

Document Text:

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT 

LAWRENCE FITZGERALD, 

Plaintiff - Appellant, 

) 

) 

) 

) 

~. - . ' 

~::~J2?'.Ji~~:~~1-~,-;~'.}~;-:: ~·::: ~. 

AUG 3 ~ 1992 

ROBERT L. HOEC~:S?. 

Clerk 

v. ) No. 91-1368 

) (D.C. No. 91-B-1665) 

KATHERINE NASON, and AMY GERTZ, 

Defendants - Appellees. 

) (D . Colo.) 

) 

) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

Before LOGAN, BARRETT, and EBEL, Circuit Judges. 

Appellant Lawrence Fitzgerald brought this S 1983 action 

against two state social workers for due process violations 

regarding the custody of an infant, Kali Graham, whom Fitzgerald 

claims is his daughter. His complaint 

district court as based on conclusory claims, 

* 

was dismissed by the 

and he appealed. 1 

This order and judgment has no precedential value and shall 

not be cited, or used by any court within the Tent h Circuit, 

except for purposes of establishing the doctrines of the law of 

the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel. 10th Cir. R. 

36.3. 

1 Defendants-appellees did not submit briefs to the court in 

response to this appeal. After examining plaintiff-appellant's 

brief and the appellate record, this panel has determined 

unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist the 

determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a); 10th 

Cir. R. 34.1.9. The case is therefore ordered submitted without 

oral argument. 

1 

Appellate Case: 91-1368 Document: 010110307933 Date Filed: 08/31/1992 Page: 1
We affirm. 

Kali Graham was born to a minor, Lisa Ballwahan, who had two 

other preschool children. The state was legal custodian of the 

two older children, having previously adjudicated these two 

children dependent and neglected. All three children were 

surnamed Graham. Fitzgerald claims to be the father of the 

infant. He further claims that the only reason that the name 

Graham appeared on the infant's birth certificate was that 

appellee Nagle threatened Lisa with loss of custody of the two 

older children if Thomas Graham, natural father of the two older 

children, were not listed as Kali's father on Kali's birth 

certificate. 

When Kali was two months old, Lisa and all three children, 

who had been living together for several months with Lisa and 

Thomas Graham in Colorado, moved with Fitzgerald to Portland, 

Oregon, without the permission of the Colorado Department of 

Social Services, which was still the legal custodian of the two 

older children. The state district court ordered Kali to be 

placed in temporary protective custody, R. tab 3 (Complaint) ex. 

D, and ordered law enforcement officers locating the three 

children to notify the county social service department, to remove 

the children from Lisa and Fitzgerald's custody, and to detain and 

protect the children, relinquishing them only to Colorado state 

social workers. Id. ex. B. Portland police located the children, 

took them into protective custody, and relinquished them to 

appellees. 

2 

Appellate Case: 91-1368 Document: 010110307933 Date Filed: 08/31/1992 Page: 2
The common thread of the numerous claims Fitzgerald makes in 

his pro se complaint is that he is Kali's natural father. He 

contends that the social service department's claimed coercion, 

forcing Lisa to name Thomas Graham as Kali's father on Kali's 

birth certificate, and its subsequent use of the birth certificate 

to obtain a court order to remove Kali from Fitzgerald's custody 

are constitutional deprivations of his right to a relationship 

with his child. 

The magistrate judge recommended that the matter be dismissed 

because: (a) domestic relations are a state, not a federal, 

matter, and (b) the claimed constitutional violations enumerated 

in the complaint were conclusory. R. tab 4. Fitzgerald timely 

filed objections to the magistrate judge's recommendations, 

reiterating the claims set forth in the complaint. R. tab 5. The 

district court adopted the magistrate judge's recommendation and 

dismissed the case. R. tab 6. When the district court dismisses 

an action, 

[w]e review the complaint under the same standards 

applied in the district court. Because plaintiff 

pursues his claim pro se, we construe his complaint 

liberally. A complaint should not be dismissed unless, 

accepting plaintiff's allegations as true, it appears 

beyond doubt that plaintiff can prove no set of facts to 

support the claim for relief. To state a valid section 

1983 claim, plaintiff must allege defendants acted under 

color of state law to deprive him of a right secured by 

the Constitution. 

Ruark v. Solano, 928 F.2d 947, 949 (10th Cir. 199l)(citations 

omitted). 

We agree with the magistrate judge and the district court 

that domestic relations regulation at the level of the actions for 

3 

Appellate Case: 91-1368 Document: 010110307933 Date Filed: 08/31/1992 Page: 3
which Fitzgerald seeks relief are a matter of state law rather 

than rising to the level of federal constitutional deprivation. 

This circuit has recognized the constitutional protection of the 

relationship between parents and their children. Kickapoo Tribe 

of Oklahoma v. Rader, 822 F.2d 1493, 1497 (10th Cir. 1987); Wise 

v. Bravo, 666 F.2d 1328, 1332 (10th Cir. 1981). The regulation of 

that relationship, however, is "particularly within the province 

of the states" as long as the state's police power regulating the 

relationship doesn't impinge . on the protected relationship and as 

long as the state provides due process protections. Wise, 666 

F.2d at 1337 (Seymour, J., concurring). The state may regulate 

custody rights as between parents because the state has a 

compelling interest in the child. Id. at 1337-38. Not every 

interference in family relations rises to the level of 

constitutional deprivation that will support a§ 1983 action. Id. 

at 1333, 1335, 1338. 

an interference 

of constitutional 

facts alleged in 

In the case before us, Fitzgerald alleges 

with his parental rights to the degree 

interference. We disagree. Construing all 

Fitzgerald's complaint and objection 

recommendation in the light most favorable to 

to magistrate's 

Fitzgerald, as we 

must, his claim of interference does not rise to a deprivation of 

his parental rights which eclipses the state's constitutionally 

permissible police power to protect the infant Kali Graham, even 

in the face of Fitzgerald's claims of paternity and right to 

Kali's custody. 

4 

Appellate Case: 91-1368 Document: 010110307933 Date Filed: 08/31/1992 Page: 4
Secondly, the district court dismissed Fitzgerald's complaint 

because his allegations of constitutional violations were 

conclusory. We agree. Interpreting Fitzgerald's prose complaint 

liberally, he claims that state social workers coerced Lisa to 

name the father of Lisa's other two children as Kali's natural 

father on Kali's birth certificate, and, knowing Fitzgerald to be 

Kali's natural father, took that birth certificate to the state 

district court to obtain a court order to remove all three 

children from Fitzgerald's custody. From this, Fitzgerald claims 

that the social workers impermissibly interfered with his 

constitutionally protected right to the custody of Kali, the child 

he claims is his. 

We repeat that "[i]n reviewing the dismissal of a complaint, 

' [ a) 11 well-pleaded facts, as distinguished from conclusory 

allegations, must be taken as true.'" Dunn v. White, 880 F.2d 

1188, 1190 (10th Cir. 1989)(citation omitted), cert. denied, 493 

U.S. 1059 (1990). Fitzgerald, however, has not met even the most 

minimal pleading requirements to show that he has a claim to 

constitutional deprivation of his liberty interest in the 

parent/child relationship. Even if he is Kali's natural father, 

he has not shown that the social workers named as defendants so 

abused the state's permissible control over the welfare of 

children within its jurisdiction as to infringe on Fitzgerald's 

parental prerogatives. 

Dismissal was proper only if it appears beyond 

reasonable doubt that the plaintiff can prove within 

such allegations no set of facts in support of the claim 

which would entitle him to relief. While reasonable 

inferences drawable therefrom must be accepted, mere 

conclusions characterizing pleaded facts are not, nor 

5 

Appellate Case: 91-1368 Document: 010110307933 Date Filed: 08/31/1992 Page: 5
are 'unwarranted inferences drawn from the facts or 

footless conclusions of law predicated upon them.' 

Bryson v. City of Edmond, 905 F.2d 1386, 1390 (10th Cir. 

1990)(citations omitted). Fitzgerald's conclusion of law that his 

constitutional due process and liberty rights have been violated 

are without support from the factual allegations in his complaint 

and objection to magistrate's recommendation, even read in the 

most favorable light. 

The judgment of the United States District Court for the 

District of Colorado is AFFIRMED. The mandate shall issue forthwith. 

Entered for the Court 

James E. Barrett, 

Senior Circuit Judge 

6 

Appellate Case: 91-1368 Document: 010110307933 Date Filed: 08/31/1992 Page: 6