The Ho n o rab l e G re go ry Va nT at en h o v e, Un i t edS t at es Di s t ri ct J u d ge f o r t h e E as t ernDi s t ri ct * of Ke ntucky , sitti ng by

desig nation. NO T R EC OM M EN DE D F OR F UL L- TEX T P UB LIC AT ION F ile Nam e: 10a0652n.06 No. 09-4018 & 09- 4199 UN ITED STA TES C OU RT OF AP P EA LS F OR THE SI XT H C IR CU IT
H A D IY A A B D U L S A L A A M , In d i v i d u a l l y, an d a s M o th e r an d N a tu r a l G u ar d ia n of Makeba Kristos, a minor, et al., Pla int iffs- App ellee s/C ro ss- Ap pe lla nts , v. F RA N K L I N CO U NTY B OARD OF COMMI SSI ONERS, FRANKL I N COUNTY CHI L DREN S ERVI CES’S BOARD OF TRUST E E S , J OH N S AROS, and COURTNEY AL L ENSWORTH, De fe nd ants -A

pp e lle e s, and AM B ER S PI RES , Def endant- Appellant/Cross-Appe llee. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ON APPEALFROM THE U NI TED STATES DI STRI CT C OUR T FO R THE S O U T H E R

N D IS T R IC T O F O H IO

Be fore : GI BB ONS and COOK, Circ uit J udg es; and VA N TATEN HOVE, D istrict J udg e. *
PER C URI AM. Hadiy a AbdulSalaam and her three daugh t er s broug ht this § 1983 action ag ainst the Fr anklin County Boa rd of Commissio n er s , the Fr anklin County Children’s Service s (F CCS ) B oard of

Trustee s, and se v eral FCCS employ ees—c asew orker Amber Spires, supe rvisorNo. 09-4018 & 09-4199

Ab du lSa laa m v . F

ra nk lin Cnt y . B d. Of Com m’ rs, e t al

.

- 2 - Courtney Allensworth, and E x ecutive D irec tor J ohn Saros—for co nstitut ional and common law violations related to the Defenda nts’ alleg ed fabrication of abuse and negle ct evidenc e. The district court g rante d summary

judgme nt to all defenda

nts ex cept Spires. Spires interlocutorily

appea ls, claim in g

th a t a b s o lu te a n d q u a li fied immunity

protec t her fr om li a b i l i t y f o r a l l e g e d l y b r e a c h i n g P l a i n t i f

f s ’ s u b s t an t i v e d

u e p r o c e s s an d

F i r s tA m e n dm e n tr i g h ts. Plaintiffs cross-a

ppeal the district court’s determinations that neither Saros nor All ensworth kne w the i nformation they conveyed to the m edia or other orga nizations was false or acted with re taliatory in te n t, an d th a t A ll e n s w o rth f a il e d to ta

k e s u f f ic ie n t a f f ir mati v e a c ti o n to r e n d e r h e r liable for Spires’s misconduct.
I . Ba ckg round Hadiy a AbdulSalaam, an Afr ican- Ameri can mother of four daug hters (Ma

ndisa, Makeba , Meser ete, a

nd Masika) a

nd one son (Ma

ndela) , conver

ted her famil y

to I slam when she ma

rried Na im Abd

ulS a la a m in

19 96 . T he pa

re nts ini tiate d c on ta c t w ithF CCS s e e kin g he lp c on tr oll ingthe ir teena g e son’s be havior. Spires contends that Mandela intimated tha t he suffe red phy sical abuse at home. These alleg ations prompted Spires to conduct two f amily visits a n d shortly

there afte r
rec ommend remova l of the AbdulSalaam’s three minor daug hters bec ause, a ccor ding to the c ustody
c omp la int , H a diya

ne g le c te d th e ir

e du c a tio na l nee ds
. Th e dis tr ic t cou rt a de qu a te ly se t for

th t he fa c ts underlying Plaintiffs’ c laims, appropriately noting the ma

ny g enuine fac tual disputes, and we ne ed not repe at them in detail her e. Ultimately , more than a y ear afte r F CCS remove d the childre n andNo. 09-4018 & 09-4199

Ab du lSa laa m v . F

ra nk lin Cnt y . B d. Of Com m’ rs, e t al

.

- 3 - after extensive judicial proce eding s, the J uvenile Court dismissed the complaint ag ainst the AbdulSalaams and e x onerated Hadiy a. Plaintiffs broug ht suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, complaining that the Defenda nts denied them the e qu a l pr ote c tio n o f t

he law by a dmi nis te ri ng F CCS ser vic e s to the Af

ri c an- Am e ri c an f

a mil y in
a ra cially discriminatory

manner ; violated their substantive due pr ocess by (a) infring ing the
c hil dr e n’ s f

re e e xer c ise of

re lig ion , ( b) de pr ivi ngthe fa mil y of the ir Firs t Am endme nt r ig ht t o familial association, and (c) brea ching Hadiy a’s F ourtee nth A mendment rig ht to direc t the education
and up br ing ingof

he r d a ug hte rs ; and re ta liate d ag a ins t Ha diya fo r h e r p ub lic c ri tic ism

of F CCS in violation of the First Amendment. Plaintiffs a lso a ccuse d Def endants of the Ohio tort, intentional infliction of emotional distress.
Def endants moved f

or summary

judgme nt on all counts. T h e d i strict court found no evidentiar y support for Plai n t i ffs’ racial d i s c r i m i n a t i o nc l a i m ( n o t i n g i n s t e a d t h a to n l y religious discrimination appea

red to unde rlie F CCS ’s ac tions), gr anted all defe ndants except Spires summary judgme nt, a

nd awa rded Spires qualified immunity on Plaintiffs’ claim that FCCS’s actions infring ed the g ir ls’ fr e e do m of

re lig ion . T he c ourt

fo un d that qu ali fie d im mun ity did no t, h ow e ve r, sh ie ld Spi re s f ro m li abi li ty

fo r v iol a tin g Pla int if

fs ’ r ig ht t o f

a mil ia l a sso c iatio n, Ha diya ’s lib e rt y int e re st in directing her children’ s upbring ing, or Hadiy a’s First Amendment rig hts; nor did state statutory immun ity pr e ve nt a jur y fr om f ind ingthat Sp ir e s’ s a c tio ns int e nti on a lly inf lic te d e mot ion a l di str e ss.No. 09-4018 & 09-4199

Ab du lSa laa m v . F

ra nk lin Cnt y . B d. Of Com m’ rs, e t al

.

- 4 - Spires appea ls all four adve rse de terminations. Plaintiffs cross-a ppeal, but notably abandon their ra ce- related claims and municipa l-liability claims ag ainst Fr anklin County
. I nstead, Plaintiffs seek to re verse the district court’s holding s that neither Allensw orth nor Saros pa rticipated sufficie ntly

in the unconstitutional activity for a jury to find Allensworth liabl e o n t h e familial association cla im or either de fenda nt liable for F irst Amendment re taliation.
I I . A na ly sis
A. Jurisdiction We lack jurisdiction to consider whe ther the district court corre ctly deter mined that g enuine fa c tual di sp ut es p recl ud ed aw ardi ng S pi res qu ali fi ed i mm un it y on P lai nt if

fs’ su bs tan ti ve due pr oc e ss and F irst Amendment re taliation claims. Jo h n s on v. Jone s , 5 1 5 U
. S. 3 0 4 , 3 1 9

– 2 0 ( 1 9 9 5 )
. We
ac co rd i n gl y

dismiss Spires’s qualified immunity appea ls, as she urg es us to consider only fac tual aspec ts of the lower

court’s de cision.
We r e ta in j ur isd ic tio n o ve r S pir e s’ s app e a l of the dis tr ic t c ourt ’s a bs olute immun ity

and state statut or y immun ity

de nia ls, Oh io R e v. Cod e § 2 74 4. 02 (C ) (“A n order that denies . . . the be nefit of
an a lle g e d im mun ity

fr om l ia bil ity a s pro vid e d in this ch a pte r or any oth e r pr ov isi on of the law i s a final orde r.”) ; W

ill v. Hallock , 546 U.S. 345, 350 (2006) (absolute immunit y denials qualify as final
and a pp e a la ble ); and pr op e rl y re vie w the qu e sti on s o f l aw Pl a int if fs ra ise on

c ro ss- a pp e a l, Boyd v

. Baeppler , 215 F.3d 594, 596 ( 6th Cir. 2000).No. 09-4018 & 09-4199

Ab du lSa laa m v . F

ra nk lin Cnt y . B d. Of Com m’ rs, e t al

.

- 5 - B. Ab so lut e an d S

tate -S tatuto ry Im mu nit y We find that no jurisprudential purpose would be serve d by issuing a pa

nel opinion reg arding Spires’s claims t o absolute and state -statutory immunit y

in view of the w ell-re asoned, compre hensive opinion of the district cour t, which the pane l here by adopts as its opinion to affir m the dis tr ic t c ourt

jud g me nt.
C. Plainti ffs’ Cross-Appeal
1. Su pe rv iso ry Lia bil ity
The distr ic t c ourt g rante d Saros and Allensw orth summary judgme nt due to Plaintiffs’ failure to clear ly respond to Allenswor

th’s and Saros’ s arguments that neither of them actively

participated in or enc ourag ed Spires’s illeg al conduct. “[T] hat fa ilure alone ,” the c ourt held, “w arr ants summary judgme nt in Def

endants favor on that issue.” Ab du lsa laa m v . Fran k lin Cnt y . B d. of C

om m’ rs , 637 F. Supp. 2d 561, 578 (S.D. Ohio 2009). In the alter native, the c ourt addres s ed t he mer its of Plai n t iffs’ c laims ag ainst the two supervisors a nd found that Plaintiffs failed to de monstrate that either “enc ourag ed or condoned the actions of their inferior s.” Id
. (c i t i n g Gregory v . City of Lou isv ill e , 444 F.3d 725, 751–52 ( 6th Cir. 2006)).
Pla int if fs ’ f a ilure to c ounte r t

he c ourt ’s pr ima

ry ho ldi ng moo ts t

his pr on g of

the ir c ro ssappea l which attac ks only the cour t’s alternate re asoning
. See United States v. Thornton , 609 F.3dNo. 09-4018 & 09-4199

Ab du lSa laa m v . F

ra nk lin Cnt y . B d. Of Com m’ rs, e t al

.

- 6 - 373, 380 (6th Cir. 2010) (when di strict court a rticulated two dispositive holdings, a ppellant’s fa ilure to addre ss both prompted court of a ppeals to dec line revie w of e ither).
2. First Amendment Re taliati on
Her e too, the district cour

t rig htly faulted the Plaintiffs’ failure to point to e vidence in support of the ne cessa

ry “intent” element i n their re sponse to the Def endants’ summar

y judgme nt motion. Plaintiffs’ Third Claim charged t h at “a motivating fa ctor in the a ctions taken by Def endants a fter Pla int if f a nd oth e rs be g an c omp la ini ngof dis c ri min a tio n b a se d o n r e l i g i o n a nd ra c e wa s to int imi date
and sil e nc e Pla int if

f
. . . .” Pla int if

fs did no t argue be fo re the dis tr ic t c ourt that te mpo ra l pr oximi ty
a lon e su ff

ic e d to e sta

bli shint e nt. Thus , in

the a bs e nc e of any e vid e nc e th at S aros’ s mo tiv e in respondingto the newspa per w as to “intimidate and silence ” Plaintiffs, we disce rn no leg al er ror.
I I I . Conclusion
We dismiss Spires’s qualified immunit y appea l for lac k of jurisdiction, adopt and a ffirm the district c ourt’s absolute immunit y and state statutory immunit y judgme nts, de ny the cross-a ppeal a s moot due to Plain t i ff

s ’ f ai l u re t o ch al l en ge t h e d i s t ri ct co u rt ’s s u p erv i s o ry -l i ab i l i t y

h o l d i n g and af firm the district court’s g rantingof summary judgme nt on Plainti ffs’ F irst Amendment claims.