Source: http://mi.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.20180313_0000831.EMI.htm/qx
Timestamp: 2019-04-24 17:51:21+00:00

Document:
ST. CLAIR COUNTY 31ST CIRCUIT COURT, et al, Defendants.
This matter is before the Court on the Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) of Magistrate Judge Anthony P. Patti (Dkt. 16), which recommends granting Defendants' motion to dismiss.
Plaintiff Pamela Harnden filed objections to the R&R (Dkt. 17), to which Defendants filed a response (Dkt. 18). Because oral argument will not aid the decisional process, the objections to the R&R will be decided based on the parties' briefing. See E.D. Mich. LR 7.1(f)(2); Fed.R.Civ.P. 78(b). For the reasons set forth below, the R&R is accepted and Defendants' motion to dismiss is granted.
The factual and procedural background, along with the standard of decision and legal principles governing motions to dismiss, have been adequately set forth by the magistrate judge and need not be repeated here in full. In brief summary, Harnden alleges that Defendants - the 31st Circuit Court in St. Clair County and several judicial officials, including two judges - participated in the harassment of her family in the form of a child welfare investigation initiated following an October 2008 allegation that her fifteen year old son hit her adopted daughter with a metal rod. Her son was arrested and charged, and her foster children were removed from the home. Harnden and her husband were investigated for possible child abuse or neglect. Her son was released in November 2008, and the abuse or neglect investigation was closed on March 15, 2010. She now asserts claims of kidnapping, gross negligence, civil rights violations (construed as a violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983), and civil conspiracy.
This is one of four lawsuits filed by Harnden since 2015 related to this investigation. On May 16, 2016, this Court adopted the report and recommendation to dismiss the first of these lawsuits - brought against her local school district - finding that there is no private right of action for kidnapping and that all of her claims were barred by the applicable statutes of limitation. See Harnden v. Crosswell-Lexington Community Schools, No. 15-12378, 2016 WL 2731188 (E.D. Mich. May 11, 2016). The second of these lawsuits - brought against the Michigan Department of Human and Health Services - was dismissed because the defendants could not be liable under the doctrine of sovereign immunity and because, despite Harnden's claims that the limitations period was tolled due to the criminal investigations, the claims were barred by the applicable statutes of limitations. See Harnden v. State of Michigan Department of Health and Human Services, No. 16-13906, 2017 WL 3224969 (E.D. Mich. July 31, 2017), aff'd, No. 17-2022 (6th Cir. March 5, 2018). The third and fourth lawsuits, which include the instant suit, were filed on the same day, see Harnden v. County of St. Clair, No. 16-13904; the magistrate judge recommended dismissing both. Harnden filed twelve objections. For the reasons that follow, the Court overrules Harnden's objections and grants Defendants' motion to dismiss.
As explained by the magistrate judge, Defendants filed their answers on December 6, 2016 and January 19, 2017, but did not file the motion to dismiss until March 20, 2017. Thus, the motion cannot be considered a motion for failure to state a claim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), because such a motion “must be made before pleading.” But it can be construed as a motion for judgment on the pleadings, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(c). “A Rule 12(c) motion for judgment on the pleadings for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted is nearly identical to that employed under a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss.” Kottmyer v. Maas, 436 F.3d 684, 689 (6th Cir. 2006). Accordingly, “[t]he defendant has the burden of showing that the plaintiff has failed to state a claim for relief.” Directv, Inc. v. Treesh, 487 F.3d 471, 476 (6th Cir. 2007) (citing Carver v. Bunch, 946 F.2d 451, 454-455 (6th Cir. 1991)), cert. denied, 552 U.S. 1311 (2008). To survive the motion, the plaintiff must allege sufficient facts to state a claim to relief above the speculative level, such that it is “plausible on its face.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). The plausibility standard requires courts to accept the alleged facts as true, even when their truth is doubtful, and to make all reasonable inferences in favor of the plaintiff. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009); Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555-556.
Harnden has raised twelve objections. For the sake of clarity, the Court has grouped them by subject and will address them accordingly.

References: § 1983
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.