2010 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit 10-28-2010 

# H arvey H oward v

. N ew J e rsey D i

vi sion of Y outh P r e c e de nt i al or N on-P r e c e de nt i al : N on-P r e c e de nt i al D ocke t N o . 10-1613

F o llow thi s and a dd it ion al work s at : http://d i git alc ommon s .l a w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2010

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou ght t o you for f r e e and ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit at V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. It h as be e n a c c ept e d for inclusion in 2010 D e c i sion s b y an author i z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. F or mor e inform at ion, p le as e c ont a ct Be n j amin . C arl s on@l a

w . vi ll anova . e du . Re c omme nde d C it at ion " H ar vey H owar d v

. N ew J e r s ey Divi sion of Y

outh" (2010). 2010 D e cisio n s . P ape r 363. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2010/363- 1- NOT P RE CE DE NT I AL UN I TED STATES CO UR T OF A PP EALS F O R T H E T H IR D C IR C U IT

N o. 10- 1613

HAR VE Y HOWAR D; GE RA L D P E T RO VE Y, A p p e llan ts v. N EW J ER SEY D I V I SI O N O F Y O U TH A N D FA M I LY SER V I CE S; C L A R E N C E E . W H I T T A K E R , J R . , E SQ . , i ndi vi dual l yand i n hi s form er capa ci t yas D i s pos i t i onal R evi ew O ffi cerforthe D i vi s i on of Y out h and F am i l yS ervi ces; R O B E R T L E A S E , i nd i vidual l yand i n h i s capacityas D i sposi t i on al R eview O ffi cer for the D i vis i on of Y ou t h an d F am i l yS ervi ces;

and J O H N A N D / O R J A N E D O E S 1- 10

O n A p p e a l f

ro m th e U n ited S tate s D istric t C o u rt fort he D i s t r i ctof N ew J er s ey ( D . C . N o. 08- cv- 4934) D i s t r i ctJ udge: H onor abl e J oel A . Pi s ano S u b m itted U n d er T h ir d C ir cu itL . A . R . 3 4 . 1 (a),

O ct ober7 , 2010 B e f o re : F U E N T E S , J O R D A N , a n d A L D IS E R T , C i r cui tJudges .

( O pi ni on Fi l ed: O ct ober28, 2010) OPI NI ON O F THE COURTT he D i s tr i ctC our tdi d exer ci s e j ur i s di ct i on t o t he l i m i t ed ext entthati trul ed on the 1 m e rits o f a M o tio n f

o r a P re lim in a ryIn

ju n c tio n f

iled b yth e p lain tiff

s, a s m o re f

u lly d e s c ri b e d th e re in . See inf ra a t 5 .

- 2- F U E N T E S , C i r cui tJudge . A ppel l ant s , H arveyH ow ar d and G er al d Pet r ovey , w er e both empl oy ed i n t he N ew Je rse yp u b lic s c h o o ls. B a se d o n in c id e n ts th a t o c c u rre d d u rin g th e c o u rse o f th e ir empl oym ent , pur s uantt o N . J . St at . A nn. § 9: 6- 8. 11, theyw er e i nves t i gat ed bythe N ew J er s eyD i vi s i on of Y out h and Fami l ySer vi ces ( “D Y FS”) and found t o have ne gl ect ed or abus ed s tudent s . Forbot h H ow ar d and Petr ovey , the i ni t i al i nves t i gat i on byD Y FS and the fi r s tl evel of appe al di d noti ncl ude a he ar i ng ora pl enarypr ocee di ng i n w hi ch they coul d par t i ci pat e. T he nextl evel of r evi ew , how ever , ent ai l s a ful l admi ni s t r at i ve hea r i ng befor e the O ffi ce of

A dm i ni s t r at i ve Law ( “O A L ”) ; both H ow ar d and Petr oveyhave r eques t ed s uch hea r i ngs , w hi ch curr ent l yr emai n pendi ng. S e c tio n 9 :6 -8 .1 1 a lso p ro v id e s f o r th e e n tryo f

th e n a m e s o f

in d iv id u a ls f

o u n d to h a v e a b u s e d o r n e g le c te d a c h ild in to th e N e w J e rs e yC h ild A b u s e C e n tr a l R e g is tr y . Pl ai nt i ffs cl ai m t hatt he s t atut e vi ol at es thei rdue pr oces s r i ght s underthe U ni t ed St at es an d N ew Jerse yC o n sti tuti o n s as it perm it s the en tryo f th eir na m es in to the reg istry w i thouta pr i oroppor tuni t yt o be hea r d. T heys eek de cl ar at oryand i nj unct i ve r el i ef, at t or neyfee s , and damages pur s uantt o 42 U . S. C . § 1983. T h e D istric t C o u rt a b sta in e d f ro m e x e rc isin g ju risd ictio n o v e r th e in sta n t su it i n l i gh tof the on go i ng st at e proceed i ng s. S u c h a b ste n tio n w a s p ro p e r w ith re sp e c t to 1 Pl ai nt i ffs ’ cl ai m s fordecl ar at or yand i nj unct i ve r el i ef. Pl ai nt i ffs ’ cl ai m s fordamages andT he D i s tr i ctC our texer ci s ed j ur i s di ct i on pur s uantt o 28 U . S. C . § 1331. T hi s C our thas 2 juri sd ict ion u n d er 2 8 U . S . C . § 1 2 9 1 . E x ce p t w ith resp ec t t o the p lai n ti ff s’ M o ti o n fo r A Pr el i m i naryI nj unct i on, t he D i s t r i ctC our tabs t ai ned fr om exer ci s i ng j ur i s di ct i on under Y o u n g e r v . H

a rr is , 401 U . S. 37 ( 1971) . “W e exe r ci s e pl enaryr evi ew overthe l egal d e t e r mi n a t i o n o f

wh e t h e rt h e r e q u i r e me n t s f o ra b s t e n t i o n h a v e b e e n me t . On c e we d e ter m in e th a t th e re q u ire m e n ts h a v e b e e n m e t, w e re v iew a d istric t co u rt’s d e c isio n to ab stai n u n d er Y

ou ng er abs t ent i on pr i nci pl es forabus e of di s cr et i on. ” A ddi ct i on Speci al is t

s , I nc. v. Tw p. of H am pt on , 411 F. 3d 399, 408 ( 3d C i r . 2005) ( i nt ernal quot at i on m ark s & cit ati o n o m itted).

- 3- at t or neyfee s agai ns tD efe ndant s i n thei ri ndi vi dual capa ci t i es , how ever , s houl d have be en s t ay ed r athert han di s m i s s ed. Fort he r eas ons thatfol l ow , w e w i l l aff i r m i n par tand v a c a te in p a rt a n d re m a n d to th e D istric t C o u rt f o r f u rth e r p ro c e e d in g s c o n sis ten t w ith th is opi ni on. 2 I. B eca us e w e w r i t e pr i m ar i l yforthe part i es , w e onl ydi s cus s the fa ct s and pr ocee di ngs t o t he ext entnece s s aryforthe r es ol ut i on of the ca s e. T hi s cas e i nvol ves a cha l l enge t o t he cons t i tut i onal i t yof N . J . St at . A nn. § 9: 6- 8. 11, w hi ch pr ovi des fort he entr yof the name of an i ndi vi dual acc us ed of a bus i ng and/ or negl ect i ng a chi l d i nt o t he N ew J er s eyC hi l d A bus e C entr al R egi s t r y . Speci fi cal l y , upon r ece i vi ng a r eportof chi l d abus e, D Y FS “sha l l i ni t i at e an i nves t i gat i on w i t hi n 24 hour s of r ece i ptof the r eport. . . . [D Y FS] s hal l al s o, w i t hi n 72 hour s , forw ar d a r epor tof s uch m at t ert o the chi l d abus e r egi s t r yoper at ed bythe di vi s i on i n T r ent on. ” N . J . St at . A nn. § 9 :6-8 . 1 1 . A u tho ri ze d en ti ti es, suc h as D Y F S , fa m il yd ayca re p rov iders, an d ch il d ca re cent er s , m ayr eques ti nform at i on fr om the r egi s t r yi n l i m i t ed ci r cumst ance s s uch as e m p lo ym e n t b a c k g ro u n d c h e c k s a n d s c re e n in g f o r f o s te r o r a d o p tiv e p a re n ts . I d. § 9: 6- 8. 10a.- 4-

D ur i ng t he 2005–2006 s chool y ear , H ow ar d w as a s peci al educa t i on t eac herat J o y c e Ki l me rE l e me n t a r yS c h o o l . I n M a y2 0 0 6 , th e r e wa s a n a l t e r c a t i o n b e t we e n two stu d e n ts in H o w a rd ’s c las sro o m . S h o rtlyth e re a f ter , H o w a rd re sig n e d a s a n a ltern a tiv e to b e in g ter m in a ted . D Y F S b e g a n a n in v e stig a tio n in to th e a lterc a tio n ; th is in v e stig a tio n d id n o t i n v o lve a h ea ri n g o r plen aryp roc ee d ing in w h ich H o w ard co u ld p arti cipa te. In A u g u st 2 0 0 6 , D Y F S iss u e d a n in v e stig a tiv e re p o rt f in d in g th a t H o w a rd h a d p u t tw o o f h is s tudent s ats ubs t ant i al r i s k, w hi ch metthe s t atut oryr equi r ementforchi l d negl ect , and i nform ed H ow ar d t hathe coul d appea l . H ow ar d fi l ed an a ppeal , r eques t i ng a d ispo sit ion al rev iew w ith D ef en d an t- A p p ell ee C laren ce E . W h ittake r. A ppr oxi m at el yt w o y ear s l at er , havi ng hear d not hi ng, H ow ar d’ s at t orneycont act ed D Y FS. I n a l ett erdat ed A ugus t14, 2008, D Y FS i nform ed H ow ar d t hati t s pol i cyhad c h a n g e d a n d th a t d isp o sitio n a l re v iew s n o lo n g e r in v o lv e d in -p e rso n o r te lep h o n ic h e a rin g s. R a th e r, D Y F S re v iew e d th e in v e stig a tiv e re p o rt a n d o th e r c a se in f o rm a tio n “ to det erm i ne i f theypr ovi de s uffi ci ents uppor tforthe s ubs t ant i at i on. ” ( Suppl ement al A pp. ( “S. A . ”) at20. ) H ow ar d’ s D i s pos i t i onal R evi ew had bee n compl et ed and the fi ndi ng of s ubs t ant i al negl ectaff

i r m ed. H ow ar d w as gi ven the oppor tuni t yfora ful l admi ni s t r at i ve h e a ri n g b e f

o re th e O A L . H o w a rd re q u e s te d a n O A L h e a ri n g , w h ic h is c u rr e n tly p e n d in g . If th e re su lts o f

th e O A L h e a rin g a re u n f a v o ra b le, h e m a ya p p e a l to th e A p p e llate D iv isio n o f

th e N e w Je rse yS u p e rio r C o u rt. Petr oveyw as a cus t odi an atW oodbr i dge H i gh School dur i ng the 2000–2001 sc h o o l y e a r. In Ju n e 2 0 0 0 , a s tu d e n t at th e sc h o o l tripp e d P e tro v e y , ca u sin g h im to f a ll dow n s om e s t ai r s and be s er i ous l yi nj ur ed. T he s tudentthen ki cked Petr ovey , and- 5-

Petr oveys t ruck the s tudent . I n M ar ch 2001, Petr oveyr eac hed a s ett l ementw i t h t he W oodbr i dge Tow ns hi p B oar d of Educat i on and r es i gned. D Y FS i nves t i gat ed the i nci dent and found, w i t houta hea r i ng orpl enarypr ocee di ng, thatphy s i cal abus e w as su b sta n tiate d . P e tro v e yre q u e ste d a d isp o sitio n a l re v iew o f th e f in d in g w ith D e f

e n d a n tA pp e l l e e Robe r tLea s e . M or e t ha n s i x y e a r s l a t e r , byl e t t e rda t e d M a y2, 20 07 , D Y FS i nform ed Petr oveyt hathi s di s pos i t i onal r evi ew had bee n compl et ed w i t houta hea r i ng and thatthe fi ndi ng of s ubs t ant i at ed abus e had be en af fi r m ed. Pet r oveyr eques t ed an O A L h e a rin g , w h ich re m a in s p e n d in g . A f ter th e O A L h e a rin g , P e tro v e ym a ya p p e a l to th e A p p e llate D iv isio n o f th e N e w Je rse yS u p e rio r C o u rt. Pl ai nt i ffs br oughtan ac t i on i n fede r al cour tagai ns tD Y FS and agai ns tW hi t t aker and Leas e, i ndi vi dual l yand i n t hei rcapa ci t i es as D i s pos i t i onal R evi ew O ffi cer s for D Y F S . P lain tiff

s a lleg e th a t N .J. S tat. A n n . § 9 :6 -8 .1 1 v io late s th e ir d u e p ro c e ss rig h ts underthe U ni t ed St at es and N ew J er s eyC ons t i tut i ons . A s pr evi ous l ynot ed, Pl ai nt i ffs fi l ed a M ot i on fora Pr el i m i naryI nj unct i on t o enj oi n t he ongoi ng s t at e admi ni s t r at i ve pr ocee di ngs . D efe ndant s oppos ed Pl ai nt i ffs ’ r eques tfora pr el i m i naryi nj unct i on and fi l ed a mot i on t o di s m i s s pur s uantt o Feder al R ul e of Ci vi l Pr ocedur e 12( b) ( 6) . T he D i s tr i ctC our tdeni ed Pl ai nt i ffs ’ m ot i on, hol di ng thattheyhad fa i l ed t o s how any l i kel i hood of s ucce s s on t he mer i t s ori r r epar abl e i nj urycaus ed bya deni al of i nj unct i ve r el i ef. C oncl udi ng t hatD Y FS w as i m m une fr om s ui tunderthe El eventh A m endmentand thatabs t ent i on w as w arr ant ed i n l i ghtof the ongoi ng s t at e admi ni s t r at i ve pr ocee di ngs , t he D i s tr i ctC our tgr ant ed D efe ndant s ’ m ot i on t o di s m i s s and cl os ed the ca s e. Pl ai nt i ffs chall eng e bo t h o f t hese rul i ng s.- 6- II. T h e D istri ct C o u rtab stai n ed fro m ex erc isi n g juri sd ict ion u n d er Y o u n g e r v . H

a rr is , 4 0 1 U .S . 3 7 (1 9 7 1 ). Y

oungera b ste n tio n is a p p ro p ria te w h e re “ (1 ) th e re a re o n g o in g sta te p ro c e e d in g s th a t ar e ju d icia l in n a tu re ; (2 ) th e sta te p ro c e e d in g s im p lica te im p o rta n t sta te i nt er es t s ; and ( 3) t he s t at e pr ocee di ngs aff or d an ade quat e opportuni t yt o r ai s e the fe der al cl ai m s . ” A ddi ct i on Speci al is t s , I nc. v. Tw p. of H am pt on , 4 1 1 F . 3 d 3 9 9 , 4 0 8 (3d C ir . 2005) ( ci t i ng G w

ynedd Props . , I

nc. v. Low erG w

ynedd Tw

p. , 970 F. 2d 1195, 1200 ( 3d C ir. 1 9 9 2 )). E v e n w h e n th is te st is m e t, th e re a re tw o e x c e p tio n s: “ Y oungera b ste n tio n is notappr opr i at e w hen ‘ ( 1) t he s t at e pr ocee di ngs ar e bei ng under t aken i n bad fa i t h orfor purpos es of har as s m entor( 2) s om e otherextr aor di naryci r cumst ance s exi s t . ” L a za rid is v. W ehm er , 591 F. 3d 666, 670 n. 4 ( 3d C i r . 2010) ( quot i ng Schal lv. Joyc e , 885 F. 2d 101, 1 0 6 (3d C ir . 1 9 8 9 )). Y oungero p e ra te s to b a r s u its f o r i n ju n c tiv e a n d d e c la ra to ry re lie f. A nthony v. C o u n c il , 316 F. 3d 412, 418 n. 6 ( 3d C i r . 2003) ( ci t i ng Sa m u e ls v . M a c ke ll , 401 U . S. 66, 73 ( 1971) ) . W i t h r es pectt o Pl ai nt i ffs ’ i nj unct i ve and de cl ar at orycl ai m s , al l thr ee req u ir em en ts fo r Y

oungera b ste n tio n a re sa tisf ied . F irst, th e re a re o n g o in g sta te p r o c e e d i n g s t h a ta r e j u d i c i a l i n n a tu r e , a s b o t h Ho wa r d a n d P e t r o v e yh a v e p e n d i n g OAL h e a rin g s. S e c o n d , the p ro tec tio n o f c h ild re n f

ro m a b u se a n d n e g lec t is a n im p o rta n t sta te i nt er es t . T hi r d, Pl ai nt i ffs m aychal l enge the cons t i tut i onal i t yof N . J . St at . A nn. § 9: 6- 8. 11 o n d u e p ro c e s s g ro u n d s in th e s ta te p ro c e e d in g s . See Zahl v. H ar per , 282 F. 3d 204, 210 ( 3d C i r . 2002) . Fur t herm or e, nei t herof the exc ept i ons t o Y oungerappl i es her e. Pl ai nt i ffs do notcl ai m t hatt he D Y FS proc eedi ngs ar e mot i vat ed bybad fa i t h orforthe purpos e ofW e al s o aff i r m the deni al of pl ai nt i ffs ’ m ot i on forpr el i m i naryi nj unct i ve r el i ef, 3 b e c a u se , fo r th e re a so n s c ited b yth e D istric t C o u rt, th e p lain tiff s f a iled to d e m o n stra te ent i t l ementt o s uch r el i ef. D efe ndant s ar gue thatdi s m i s s al of thes e cl ai m s w as nevert hel es s w arr ant ed bas ed on a 4 d ec larati o n that theysu b m itted w ith their resp o n se to the m o ti o n fo r pre li m inary i nj unct i on t hats t at ed thatnames a r e notpl ace d i n t he R egi s t r ydur i ng the pende ncyof an appea l . ( S. A . at34–35. ) I ts t at es fur t herthatas of the dat e of the dec l ar at i on, no chec k of th e R e g is tr yh a d b e e n re q u e s te d o r p e rf o rm e d w ith re s p e c t to H o w a rd . (I d. at35 . ) “A s a g en era l m att er, a d istri ct co u rtruli n g o n a m o ti o n to d ism iss m ayn o t con side r m att ers extr aneous t o t he pl eadi ngs . H ow ever , an exc ept i on t o t he gene r al rul e i s thata document

- 7- har as s m ent . W e have expl ai ned that“ci r cumst ance s ar e extr aor di naryi n t he r el evant Y ou ng er s ens e w her e theycr eat e an e xtr aor di nar i l ypr es s i ng need f ori m m edi at e fe der al equi t abl e r el i ef, and do nots i m pl ypr es enta uni que orunus ual fac tual s i tuat i on. ” Sul l i van v. C i t y of P i t t s bur gh , 81 1 F . 2d 17 1, 17 9 (3d C i r. 19 87 ) ( i nternal quotat i on m arks & ci t at i ons om i t t ed) . I n ar gui ng t hatabs t ent i on i s i m pr operher e, Pl ai nt i ffs ci t e the l ong dur at i on of the s t at e pr ocee di ngs ; t hi s i s i ns uffi ci ent l yextr aor di naryt o w arr antfede r al r el i ef. A ccor di ngl y , w e w i l l aff i r m the di s m i s s al of Pl ai nt i ffs ’ cl ai m s fori nj unct i ve and declar at oryrel i ef ag ai nstal l D efen dan t s. 3 W i th r es pectt o Pl ai nt i ffs ’ cl ai m s fordamages and att orneyfee s agai ns tW hi t aker a n d L e a se in th e ir in d iv id u a l ca p a c iti e s, h o w e v e r, w e h a v e h e ld th a t “a d istric t co u rt, w hen abs t ai ni ng fr om adj udi cat i ng a cl ai m fori nj unct i ve r el i ef, s houl d s t ayand not di s m i s s acc om pany i ng cl ai m s fordamages and att orneyfee s w hen s uch r el i ef i s not avai l abl e fr om t he ongoi ng s t at e pr ocee di ngs . ” W i l l i am s v. H

ept i ng , 844 F. 2d 138, 144–45 ( 3d C i r . 1988) ( i nt ernal quot at i on m arks & ci t at i on om i t t ed) . H er e, the D i s t r i ct C o u rt d ism iss e d P lain tiff s’ d a m a g e s a n d a tto rn e yf e e s c laim s a g a in st a ll D e f e n d a n ts r a th e rth a n s t a y i n g t h e m. 4i nt egr alt o orexpl i ci t l y r el i ed upon i n t he compl ai ntm aybe cons i der ed w i t hout convert i ng t he mot i on [t o di s m i s s ] i nt o one fors um m aryj udgm ent . ” I n r e Burl i ngt on C oatFactor

y Sec . Li t ig. , 11 4 F . 3d 14 10 , 14 26 (3d C i r. 19 97 ) ( i nternal quotat i on m arks & c itatio n s o m itt e d ). T h e d e c lar a tio n su b m itt e d b yD e f e n d a n ts d o e s n o t f

a ll i n to th is exce pt i on and thus m aynotbe cons i der ed atthe mot i on- t o- di s m i s s s t age. A l l of D efe ndant s ’ ar gum ent s i n favorof di s m i s s al r el yon t hi s decl ar at i on and ar e thus unavai l i ng. Pl ai nt i ffs r ai s e var i ous ot herchal l enges t o t he D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s di s m i s s al or derand the 5 or derdeny i ng t hei rm ot i on forpr el i m i naryi nj unct i on. A s thes e ar gum ent s ar e w i t hout m erit , w e d ec li n e to a d d ress the m fu rth er.

- 8- T he damages and att or neyfee s cl ai m s agai ns tD Y FS w er e pr oper l ydi s m i s s ed in s te a d o f

s ta y e d b e c a u s e D Y F S is im m u n e f ro m s u it u n d e r t h e E le v e n th A m e n d m e n t. See P a. Fed’n of Spo rt

sm en’s C l ub s, Inc. v. Hess , 297 F. 3d 310, 323 ( 3d C i r . 2002) ( “[T] he El eventh A m endment. . . has been i nt erpr et ed t o r enders t at es — and, by e x ten sio n , sta te a g e n c ies a n d d e p a rtm e n ts a n d o f f icia ls w h e n th e sta te is th e re a l p a rtyin i nt er es t

— gener al l yi m m une fr om s ui tbypr i vat e part i es i n fede r al cour t . ”) . W hi t t akerand L e a s e in th e iro f

f ic ia l c a p a c itie s a re s im ila rl yim m u n e f ro m a s u it f

o r d a m a g e s . See i d. W h ile th e yc a n b e s u e d in th e iro f f ic ia l c a p a c itie s f

o r i n ju n c tiv e re lie f

, se e E x P a rte Y oung , 209 U . S. 123, 155–56 ( 1908) , s uch cl ai m s w er e s ubj ectt o di s m i s s al under Y ounger . A ccordi ng l y , w e w i l l affirm the D i stri ctC ou rt ’s dis m i ssal of all cl ai m s, i ncl udi ng t hos e fordamages and att orneyfee s , agai ns tD Y FS and agai ns tW hi t t akerand L ease i n thei r offi ci al capac i t i es. A s t o P l ai nti ffs’ cl ai m s for dam ages an d att orneyfees againstW hitt aker and L ease i n thei ri ndi vi dual capa ci t i es , t he D i s t r i ctC our ts houl d have s t ay ed r atherthan di s m i s s ed th e s e c l a i ms . Th u s , we wi l l v a c a t e th e Di s t r i c tCo u r t ’ s Or d e rwi th r e s p e c tt o th e s e c l a i ms o n l y. 5- 9- III . F or the fo regoi ng reas on s, w e affirm the D i stri ctC ou rt ’s den i al of P l ai nti ffs’ m ot i on forpr el i m i naryi nj unct i on. W e af fi r m i n par tand vac at e i n par tthe D i s t r i ct C our t ’ s O r dergr ant i ng D efe ndant s ’ m ot i on t o di s m i s s and r emand forfur t herpr ocee di ngs i n acc or dance w i t h t hi s opi ni on.