NOT PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEAL S

FOR T HE THIRD CIRCUIT

___________

No s

. 2 1

- 1 2 6 4 & 2 1

- 2 1 4 5

__________

M A RY A N N P E T R I

, Appellant

v.

ERIE COUNTY CHILDR EN AND YOUTH;

TINA TROHOSKE; AMY DALEY; RALPH A. FERRIS

_______________ _____________________

On Appeal from the United States District Court

for the W e s t e rn District of P e n n s y l v a n i a

(D.C. Civil Action No. 1

- 1 9

- c v

- 0 0 2 4 3 )

M a g i s t r a t e Judge: Ho norable R i c h a r d A

. L a n z i l l o

____________________________________

Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)

N o v e m b e r 1 2

, 2 0 2 1

Be fore: G R E E N A W A Y

, J R

. , P O R T E R a n d N Y G A A R D

, Circuit Judges

(Opinion filed : Decembe r 7, 2021 )

___________

OPINION *

___________

PER CURIAM

M a ry a n n P e t r i ap p e a l s f r o m t h e District C o u r t ’ s o r d e r dismissin g h e r a m e n d e d

c o m p l a i n t

. S h e a l s o c h a l l e n g e s s o m e o f t h e District C o u r t ’ s o t h e r o r d e r s

. W e w i l l a f f

i r m

.

* This disposition i s not an opinion of the full C ourt an d pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does n o t

constitute bind ing precedent.2 I

.

P e t r i f i l e d s u i t a g a i n s t ( 1 ) h e r f o r m e r h u s b a n d R a l p h F e rr i s

, a n d ( 2 ) t h e E r i e

C o u n t y O f f

i c e o f C h i l d r e n a n d Y o u t h an d t w o o f i t s e m p l o y e e s ( colle ctively

, t h e “ O C Y

d e f e n d a n t s ” )

. S h e a l l e g e d t h a t F e r r i s f a l s e l y r e p o r t e d t o t h e O C Y d e f e n d a n t s t h a t s h e

e m o t i o n a l l y a b u s e d t w o o f t h e c o u p l e ’ s c h i l d r e n

. S h e f u r t h e r a l l e g e d t h a t t h e O C Y

d e f e n d a n t s r e p o r t e d t h a t th e a b u s e w a s “ i n d i c a t e d ” w i t h o u t a d e q u a t e l y i n v e s t i g a t i n g t h a t

i s s u e

. P e t r i a l l e g e d t h a t

, a l t h o u g h t h e i n d i c a t i o n s o f a b u s e w e r e l a t e r e x p u n g e d

, t h e y

r e s u l t e d i n h e r l o s s o f c u s t o d y t o F e rr i s

, h e r l o s s o f e m p l o y m e n t

, h e r i m p r i s o n m e n t f o r

f

a i l u r e t o p a y c h i l d s u p p o r t

, a n d v a r i o u s h e a l t h p r o b l e m s

.

P e t r i i n i t i a l l y f i l e d h e r c l a i m s a g a i n s t F e r r i s a n d t h e O C Y d e f e n d a n t s i n

P e n n s y l v a n i a s t a t e c o u r t

, b u t s h e v o l u n t a r i l y d i s m i s s e d t h a t a c t i o n i n o r d e r t o f i l e t h e

f

e d e r a l a c t i o n a t i s s u e h e r e

. I n t his f e d e r a l a c t i o n

, s h e a s s e r t e d b o t h f e d e r a l a n d s t a t e

- l a w

cl a i m s

. B o t h F e r r i s a n d t h e O C Y d e f e n d a n t s f i l e d m o t i o n s t o d i s m i s s F e rr i s ’ s c o m p l a i n t

.

B y o r d e r e n t e r e d J u l y 1 7

, 2 0 2 0

, t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t 1 g r a n t e d t h o s e m o t i o n s b u t g a v e P e t r i

l e a v e t o a m e n d h e r c o m p l a i n t a g a i n s t t h e O C Y d e f e n d a n t s

. P e t r i d i d s o

, a n d t h e O C Y

d e f e n d a n t s f i l e d a m o t i o n t o d i s m i s s P e t r i ’ s a m e n d e d c o m p l a i n t a s w e l l

. B y o r d e r e n t e r e d

J u n e 4

, 2 0 2 1

, t h e Di strict C o u r t g r a n t e d t h a t m o t i o n a n d d i s m i s s e d P e t r i ’ s a m e n d e d

c o m p l a i n t w i t h o u t f u r t h e r l e a v e t o a m e n d

. I n b o t h o r d e r s o f d i s m i s s a l

, t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t

d i s m i s s e d P e t r i ’ s f e d e r a l c l a i m s a n d d e c l i n e d t o e x e r c i s e s u p p l e m e n t a l jurisdiction o v e r

1 A Magistrate Judge conducted the proceedings on the consent o f all parties under 28

U.S.C. § 636(c). W e refer to the Magis trate Ju dge ’ s rulings as those of the District Court.3 h e r s t a t e

- l a w c l a i m s

. P e t r i a p p e a l s

. 2

I I

.

W e w i l l a f f

i r m s u b s t a n t i a l l y f o r t h e reasons e x p l a i n e d b y t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t

.

P e t r i ’ s b r i e f s c a n b e l i b e r a l l y c o n s t r u e d t o r a i s e n u m e r o u s c h a l l e n g e s o n ap p e a l

, b u t e a c h

l a c k s m e r i t

. W e a d d r e s s s i x o f t h e m

.

F i r s t

, P e t r i c h a l l e n g e s t h e d i s m i s s a l o f h e r f e d e r a l c l a i m s a g a i n s t F e rr i s

. T h o s e

c l a i m s w e r e premised s o l e l y o n h e r allegations t h a t F e rr i s ’ s r e p o r t s o f a b u s e t o t h e O C Y

d e f e n d a n t s w e r e f a l s e

. T h e District C o u r t d i s m i s s e d t h e s e c l a i m s b e c a u s e P e t r i d i d n o t

a l l e g e t h a t F e r r i s w a s a s t a t e a c t o r o r t h a t h i s r e p o r t s c o u l d b e a t t r i b u t e d t o t h e s t a t e a s

r e q u i r e d f o r c l a i m s u n d e r 4 2 U

. S

. C

. § 1 9 8 3

. P e t r i d o e s n o t m e a n i n g f u l l y c h a l l e n g e t h a t

c o n c l u s i o n

, a n d i t i s c o rr e c t b e c a u s e a p r i v a t e p a r t y ’ s r e p o r t s o f a b u s e d o n o t c o n s t i tu t e

s t a t e a c t i o n i n t h e a b s e n c e o f c i r c u m s t a n c e s n o t a l l e g e d h e r e

. S e e B r o k a w v

. M e r c e r

2 Petri filed her notice of appeal in C.A. N o . 21

- 1264 seeking to challenge an order

t erminating Ferr is as a defendant while her ame nded com plaint against the OCY

defenda nts was still pending. She later filed her notice of appeal in C.A . No. 21

- 2145

after the Dis trict Court dismissed her amended co m plaint. That fin al decision gives us

juri sdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We exercise plenary review over the d ismissal of a

complaint under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)( 6)

. See Talley v. Wetzel

, — F. 4th

— , No. 19

-

3055 , 2021 WL 4396673, at *9 n.7 (3d Cir. Sep t. 27, 2021). “ To withstand a Rule

12(b)(6) motion to dismiss, a complaint must contain suffici ent factual matter, accepted

as true, to state a claim to relief that i s plausible on its face. ” Id. (quotatio n marks

omitted). We review for abuse of discret io n the other ruli ngs that Petri ’ s briefs can be

read to challenge, including the D istrict Court ’ s denial of furthe r amendment, see id. at

* 8 n.6 , its decision to decl ine supplemental jurisdiction, see id. at * 10 n. 8 , and its denial

of Petri ’ s motions to d is qualify opposing counsel, see Lazy Oil Co. v. W itco Corp. , 166

F.3d 581, 588 (3d Cir. 1999), a nd for disqualifica tion or recusal of the Magistrate Judge,

see Butt v. United Bhd. of Carpenters & Joiners of Am. , 999 F.3d 882, 890

- 91 (3d Cir.

2021).4 C o u n t y

, 2 3 5 F

. 3 d 1 0 0 0

, 1 0 1 6 ( 7 t h C i r

. 2 0 0 0 ) ; s e e a l s o K a c h v

. H o s e

, 5 8 9 F

. 3 d 6 2 6

, 6 4 6

( 3 d C i r

. 2 0 0 9 ) ( d i s c u s s i n g t h e s t a t e

- a c t i o n r e q u i r e m e n t )

. 3

S e c o n d

, P e t r i c h a l l e n g es t h e d i s m i s s al o f h er c l a i m s a g a i n s t t h e O C Y d e f e n d a n t s

.

P e t r i b a s e d t h o s e c l a i m s on h e r a l l e g a t i o n t h a t t h e O C Y d e f e n d a n t s i n a d e q u a t e l y

i n v e s t i g a t e d F e r r i s ’ s r e p o r t s o f a b u s e a n d b a s e d t h e i r i n d i c a t i o n s o f a b u s e s o l e l y o n

information p r o v i d e d b y F e rr i s

. T h e District C o u r t p r o p e r l y c o n s t r u e d t h e s e a l l e g a t i o n s

a s c l a i m s t h a t t h e O C Y d e f e n d a n t s v i o l a t e d P e t r i ’ s r i g h t s t o p r o c e d u r a l a n d s u b s t a n t i v e

d

u e p r o c e s s

. A s t o t h e O C Y i t s e l f

, t h e c o u r t c o n c l u d e d t h a t P e t r i d i d n o t a l l e g e a n y

p o l i c y o r c u s t o m t h a t m i g h t g i v e r i s e t o l i a b i l i t y u n d e r M o n e l l v

. D e p a r t m e n t o f S o c i a l

S e r v i c e s o f N e w Y o r k

, 4 3 6 U

. S

. 6 5 8 ( 1 9 7 8 )

. A s t o t h e i n d i v i d u a l O C Y d e f e n d a n t s

, t h e

c o u r t c o n c l u d e d t h a t P e t r i f a i l e d t o a l l e g e ( 1 ) t h a t a n y p r o c e d u r e s f o l l o w e d w e r e

c o n s t i tu t i o n a l l y d e f i c i e n t

, s e e M i l l e r v

. C i t y o f P h i l a

. , 1 7 4 F

. 3 d 3 6 8

, 3 7 3 ( 3 d C i r

. 1 9 9 9 )

,

o r ( 2 ) t h a t d e f e n d a n t s ’ c o n d u c t c o n s t i tu t e d t h e k i n d o f c o n s c i e n c e

- s h o c k i n g b e h a v i o r

r e q u i r e d f o r a s ub s t a n t i v e d u e p r o c e s s c l a i m

, s e e i d

. a t 3 7 5

.

H a v i n g c a r e f u l l y r e v i e w e d t h e r e c o r d

, w e a g r e e w i t h t h e s e r u l i n g s

. W e s e p a r a t e l y

a d d r e s s o n l y P e t r i ’ s s u b s t a n t i v e d u e p r o c e s s c l a i m a g a i n s t t h e i n d i v i d u a l O C Y

d e f e n d a n t s

. T o s t a t e t h a t c l a i m

, P e t r i h a d t o a l l e g e f a c t s r a i s i n g t h e i n f e r e n ce t h a t

3 In it s first order of d ismissal, the District Court treated the st ate

- action requirement as

jurisdic t ional and di smissed these claims under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1) . I n i ts second

o rder of dismissal, the District Court concluded that this defect went to failur e to state a

claim an d that dismissal was appropriate under Rule 12(b)(6) instead. We agree, se e

Boyle v . Governor ’ s Veterans Outreach & Assistance Ctr. , 925 F.2d 71, 74 (3d Cir.

1991), and w ill affirm the dismissal of these claims on that basis.5 d e f e n d a n t s ’ i n v e s t i g a t i o n s w e r e s o a r b i t r a r y

, i l l

- c o n c e i v e d o r m a l i c i o u s a s t o s h o c k t h e

c o n s c i e n c e

. S e e M u l h o l l a n d v

. G o v e rn m e n t C o u n t y o f B e r k s

, 7 0 6 F

. 3 d 2 2 7

, 2 4 1 ( 3 d C i r

.

2 0 1 3 ) ; B

. S

. v

. S o m e r s e t C o u n t y

, 7 0 4 F

. 3 d 2 5 0

, 2 6 7 ( 3 d C i r

. 2 0 1 3 ) ; M i l l e r

, 1 7 4 F

. 3 d a t

3 7 6

. T h e d e g r e e o f wrongfulne ss n e c e s s a r y t o s h o c k t h e c o n s c i e n c e d e p e n d s o n t h e

c i r c u m s t a n c e s

, b u t n e g l i g e n c e a l o n e i s n o t e n o u g h

. S e e M i l l e r

, 1 7 4 F

. 3 d a t 3 7 5

.

W e a g r e e t h a t P e t r i d i d n o t p l a u s i b l y a l l e g e a n y c o n s c i e n c e

- s h o c k i n g b e h a v i o r

.

P e t r i a l l e g e d o n l y t h a t F e rr i s ’ s c l a i m s o f a b u s e w e r e f a l s e a n d t h a t t h e O C Y d e f e n d a n t s

s h o u l d h a v e i n v e s t i g a t e d t h e m m o r e t h o r o u g h l y

. P e t r i

, h o w e v e r

, d i d n o t a l l e g e a n y f a c t s

r e a s o n a b l y s u g g e s t i n g t h a t t h e O C Y d e f e n d a n t s kn e w o r s h o u l d h a v e k n o w n t h a t t h e

a l l e g a t i o n s w e r e f a l s e o r t h a t t h e y h a d a n y o t h e r r e a s o n t o c o n d u c t t h e i n v e s t i g a t i o n s a n y

d i f f

e r e n t l y t h a n t h e y d i d

. T h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t e x p l a i n e d t h e s e d e f e c t s t o P e t r i i n i t s f i r s t

o r d e r o f d i s m i s s a l

, b u t s h e d i d n o t c u r e t h e m i n h e r a m e n d e d c o m p l a i n t

. I n s t e a d

, s h e

r e s p o n d e d b y a d d i n g t h e c o n c l u s o r y a s s e r t i o n t h a t t h e O C Y d e f e n d a n t s “ deliberately”

c o n d u c t e d a n i n a d e q u a t e i n v e s t i g a t i o n

. B u t P e t r i a l l e g e d n o f a c t s s u g g es t i n g th a t s u c h

w a s t h e c a s e

, a n d t h a t c o n c l u s o r y a s s e r t io n d o e s n o t s u f f

i c e

.

T h i r d

, P e t r i a r g u e s t h a t w e should r e m a n d s o t h a t s h e c a n a m e n d h e r c o m p l a i n t

a g a i n

. S h e d o e s n o t s p e c i f y h o w

, b u t s h e a r g u e s t h a t h e r c l a i m s a r e s u p p o r t e d b y exhibits

to which she refers as Exhi b its A th rough V

, w h i c h s h e f u r t h e r a r g u e s t h e District C o u r t

f

a i l e d t o r e v i e w

. Petri has n ot identified whe re t h o s e e x h i b i t s appear of record, but i t

a p p e a r s t h a t Exhibits A through L a r e attached to the OC Y defendants ’ i n i t i a l motion to

dismiss a t E C F N o

. 2 0 a n d t h a t P e t r i f i l e d t h e o t h e r s a t E C F N o s

. 2

, 1 9

, 2 5 a n d 8 9

. T h e6 O C Y d e f e n d a n t s s u b m i t t e d E x h i b i t s A through L i n s u p p o r t o f a n a l t e r n a t i v e r e q u e s t f o r

s u m m a r y j u d g m e n t

, b u t t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t d e c l i n e d t o c o n s i d e r t h a t r e q u e s t a n d i n s t e a d

a p p l i e d t h e R u l e 1 2 ( b ) ( 6 ) s t a n d a r d t o t h e a l l e g a t i o n s i n P e t r i ’ s c o m p l a i n t

. T h e D i s t r i c t

C o u r t d i d n o t e r r i n t h a t r e g a r d

. I n a n y e v e n t

, w e h a v e r e v i e w e d t h e e x h i b i t s ourselves

,

a n d t h e y d o n o t s u p p o r t P e t r i ’ s c l a i m s

. 4 N o r d o t h e s e e x h i b i t s o r a n y o f P e t r i ’ s o t h e r

f

i l i n g s s u g g e s t t h a t s h e c o u l d p l e a d a p l a u s i b l e c l a i m i f g i v e n a n o t h e r c h a n c e

.

F o u r t h

, P e t r i a r g u e s t h a t t h e District C o u r t e rr e d i n d i s m i s s i n g h e r a m e n d e d

c o m p l a i n t w h i l e h e r ap p e a l a t C

. A

. N o

. 2 1

- 1 2 6 4 w a s p e n d i n g

. T h a t ap p e a l w a s f r o m a n

i n t e r l o c u t o r y o r d e r t e r m i n a t i n g F e rr i s a s a d e f e n d a n t

. T h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t p r o p e r l y

c o n c l u d e d t h a t t h e a p p e a l d i d n o t d i v e s t i t o f j u r i s d i c t i o n b e c a u s e i t w a s f r o m a n o r d e r

t h a t w a s n o t i m m e d i a t e l y a p p e a l a b l e

. S e e F e d

. R

. C i v

. P

. 5 4 ( b ) ; V e n e n v

. S w e e t

, 7 5 8

F

. 2 d 1 1 7

, 1 2 1 ( 3 d C i r

. 1 9 8 5 )

. 5

4 To the c ontrary, the onl y exhibits that are relevant to Petri ’ s claims contradict them.

Petri claims, for example, th at the individu al OCY defendants based their indications of

a buse solely on information provided by Ferris. B ut these exhibits indicate that th os e

defendants als o interviewed the child ren a t issue, thei r siblings, their psychologists, and

Petri herself. ( E. g., ECF N o s

. 20

- 7 at 2

- 5; 20

- 9 at 4

- 6 ; 20

- 10 at 7 .) We do not rely on

these exhibits in affirming the dismiss al of Petri ’ s claims under Rule 1 2(b)(6). I n stea d,

we reference them solely to address Petri ’ s argument s on appeal regarding t hese exhibits

.

5 Although we lacked jurisdiction in C.A . 21

- 12 64 when Petri f iled it, we need not

dismiss that part of th ese con solidated appeals because it ri pened upon the Dis trict

Court ’ s entry of a final order

. S ee Lazy Oil , 166 F.3d at 585

- 86

. Petr i ’ s subsequent

appeal from that final order gives us jurisdiction over the order ap pealed in C. A. No. 21

-

12 64 in any event.7 F i f t h

, P e t r i a r g u e s t h a t t h e District C o u r t e rr e d i n d e n y i n g m o t i o n s t h a t s h e f i l e d t o

d i s q u a l i f y d e f e n d a n t s ’ c o u n s e l a n d t h e M a g i s t r a t e J u d g e

. T h e District C o u r t d i d n o t

a b u s e i t s d i s c r e t i o n i n d e n y i n g t h o s e m o t i o n s

. A s t o d e f e n d a n t s ’ c o u n s e l

, P e t r i d i d n o t

a l l e g e t h a t t h e y p r e v i o u s l y r e p r e s e n t e d h e r o r a l l e g e a n y t h i n g e l s e t h a t m i g h t h a v e

w a rr a n t e d d i s q u a l i f i c a t i o n

. S e e I n r e C o r n D e r i v a t i v e s A n t i t r u s t L i t i g

. , 7 4 8 F

. 2 d 1 5 7

, 1 6 1

( 3 d C i r

. 1 9 8 4 )

. A s t o t h e M a g i s t r a t e J u d g e

, P e t r i a r g u e d t h a t h e w a s b i a s e d b e c a u s e h e

d i s m i s s e d h e r i n i t i a l c o m p l a i n t

. B u t “ j u d i c i a l r u l i n g s a l o n e a l m o s t n e v e r c o n s t i tu t e a

v a l i d b a s i s f o r a b i a s o r p a r t i a l i t y m o t i o n

, ” L i t e k y v

. U n i t e d S t a t e s

, 5 1 0 U

. S

. 5 4 0

, 5 5 5

( 1 9 9 4 )

, a n d o u r r e v i e w r e v e a l s n o t h i n g s u g g e s t i n g t h a t t h i s c a s e i s a n y e x c e p t i o n

.

S i x t h a n d f i n a l l y

, P e t r i a r g u e s t h a t t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t s h o u l d h a v e i n f o r m e d h e r t h a t

i t l a c k e d j u r i s d i c t i o n a t t h e b e g i n n i n g r a t h e r t h a n t h e e n d o f t h e c a s e

. W e c o n s t r u e t h a t

a r g u m e n t a s a r e f e r e n c e t o t h e c o u r t ’ s d e c i s i o n n o t t o e x e r c i s e s u p p l e m e n t a l j u r i s d i c t i o n

o v e r P e t r i ’ s s t a t e

- l a w c l a i m s

. P e t r i d o e s n o t d i r e c t l y c h a l l e n g e t h a t r u l i n g

, b u t t h e District

C o u r t d i d n o t a b u s e i t s d i s c r e t i o n i n d e c l i n i n g t o e x e r c i s e s u p p l e m e n t a l jurisdiction o n c e

i t d i s m i s s e d h e r f e d e r a l c l a i m s

. S e e 2 8 U

. S

. C

. § 1 3 6 7 ( c ) ( 3 ) ; H e d g e s v

. M u s c o

, 2 0 4 F

. 3 d

1 0 9

, 1 2 3

- 2 4 ( 3 d C i r

. 2 0 0 0 )

. T o t h e e x t e n t t h a t P e t r i m a y b e a r g u i n g t h a t t h e t i m i n g o f t h e

D i s t r i c t C o u r t ’ s r u l i n g s p r e j u d i c e d h e r a b i l i t y t o a s s e r t h e r s t a t e

- l a w c l a i m s w i t h i n t h e i r

s t a t u t e s o f l i m i t a t i o n s

, t h e s t a t u t e s o f l i m i t a t i o n s w e r e t o l l e d u n d e r 2 8 U

. S

. C

. § 1 3 6 7 ( d )

.

S e e H e d g e s

, 2 0 4 F

. 3 d a t 1 2 3

. W e e x p r e s s n o o p i n i o n o n w h e t h e r t h e s t a t u t e s o f8 l i m i t a t i o n s r e m a i n s o p e n o n t h e s e c l a i m s o r o n w h e t h e r P e t r i c a n o t h e rw i s e r a i s e t h e m i n

s t a t e c o u r t

. 6

I I I

.

F o r t h e s e r e a s o n s

, w e w i l l a f f

i r m t h e j u d g m e n t o f t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t

.

6 Pe tri voluntarily dismissed her s tate

- court action with prejud ice before f iling this federal

action . She does not argue that her state

- court di smissal supported the exercise of

supplemental juri sdiction , so we do not address that issue except to note that t he District

Court was aware of the dismissal . Th e District C o urt ordered supplemental briefing on

t he effect of th e d ismissal and concluded t hat it did not bar Petri ’ s claims in this case as a

matter of res judicata . We express no opinion on whether the dismissal has any bearing

on Pe tri ’ s ability to a ssert her state

- law claims in state court in the future.