Source: http://www.leagle.com/decision/1997594108F3d486_1490/ERNST%20v.%20CHILD%20&%20YOUTH%20SERVICES%20OF%20CHESTER%20COUNTY
Timestamp: 2017-02-25 00:37:00
Document Index: 416694919

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 1983', '§ 1983', '§ 6302', '§ 6351', '§ 1291', '§ 1983', '§ 1983', '§ 1983', '§ 1983', '§ 1983', '§ 1983', '§ 1983', '§ 1983', '§ 1983', '§ 330', '§ 6302', '§ 1983']

ERNST v. CHILD & YOUTH SERVICES OF CHESTER COUNTY | 108 F.3d 486 (1997) | Leagle.com
108 F.3d 486 (1997)
ERNST v. CHILD & YOUTH SERVICES OF CHESTER COUNTY
CHILD AND YOUTH SERVICES OF CHESTER COUNTY; Carol Schravazande; Arden Olson; Wayne Stevenson; Rita Borzillo; The Judiciary of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania;
*Sylvia Ernst, Administrator of the Estate of Susanne Ernst, for Susanne Ernst.
CHILD AND YOUTH SERVICES OF CHESTER COUNTY; Carol Schravazande; Arden Olson, Wayne Stevenson; Rita Borzillo; The Judiciary of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania;
CHILD AND YOUTH SERVICES OF CHESTER COUNTY; Carol Shravazande; Arden Olson, Wayne Stevenson; Rita Borzillo; The Judiciary of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania;
A bench trial ensued on the claims that survived summary judgment. After the trial, the court granted judgment to CYS, the CYS defendants, and the Judiciary of Pennsylvania. Although the court criticized the CYS defendants for flawed social work practice and inability "to submerge their personal views in dealing with a difficult woman" and focus on Susanne's welfare, Ernst v. Chester County Children & Youth Servs., No. CIV.A. 91-3735, 1993 WL 343375, at *23 (E.D.Pa. Sept.3, 1993), it ultimately concluded that the CYS defendants' actions "were not so devoid of professional judgment or so clearly outrageous as to impose liability for constitutional violations." Id. The court held that CYS was not liable for any violations by the CYS defendants or Borzillo because Ernst had not shown that the actions were done by an official with policy-making authority or pursuant to a "policy" or "custom" of CYS. Finally, the district court held that Ernst lacked standing to bring her First Amendment challenge to Pennsylvania's juvenile court closure provision because she could not raise the right of the "third-party" public and press to access to the courts.
On the other hand, the court granted judgment in favor of Ernst against Borzillo. The court held that Borzillo, who was a state actor for purposes of § 1983 while she represented CYS, violated Ernst's substantive due process rights when she sought appellate review of an order granting Ernst an unsupervised visit with Susanne. The court found that Borzillo challenged the order primarily out of "animosity and anger at Ernst's small victory" in securing permission for an unsupervised visit. Id. at *25. Nevertheless, the court found that the harm suffered by Ernst as a result of Borzillo's actions was de minimis, consisting only of the difference between the value of the unsupervised visit ordered and the supervised visit Ernst actually had with Susanne, and awarded only nominal damages and attorneys' fees.
The CYS defendants contend that the district court lacked jurisdiction to entertain Ernst's suit under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, which prohibits federal courts from exercising "subject matter jurisdiction to review final adjudications of a state's highest court or to evaluate constitutional claims that are `inextricably intertwined with the state court's [decision] in a judicial proceeding.'" FOCUS v. Allegheny County Court of Common Pleas, 75 F.3d 834, 840 (quoting Blake v. Papadakos, 953 F.2d 68, 71 (3d Cir.1992) (alteration in original); District of Columbia Ct. of Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462, 483 n. 16, 103 S.Ct. 1303, 1315-16 n. 16, 75 L.Ed.2d 206 (1983)). According to the CYS defendants, the Rooker-Feldman doctrine precluded the district court from hearing Ernst's § 1983 claims because to decide those claims required the court to determine whether the state courts correctly adjudicated Susanne a dependent. We disagree, and find Rooker-Feldman inapplicable here.
Moreover, it is clear that deciding the substantive due process claims did not involve federal court review of a state court decision because Ernst's substantive due process claims were never decided by the state court. Although Ernst mentioned her concerns about bias on the part of the CYS defendants during the dependency proceedings, she did not articulate those concerns in constitutional due process terms. Neither did — or could — the state court base any decision regarding Susanne's dependency on a determination that Ernst's claims of bias or improper motive were invalid. Cf. Valenti v. Mitchell, 962 F.2d 288, 296 (3d Cir.1992) (holding that a party cannot escape Rooker-Feldman by raising a new constitutional theory in federal court unless the party lacked a realistic opportunity to fully and fairly litigate the constitutional claim in the state court proceeding); Centifanti v. Nix, 865 F.2d 1422, 1433 (3d Cir.1989). A dependency adjudication involves a determination that a child is without proper parental care or control, 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 6302; In the Interest of J.M., 438 Pa.Super. 409, 652 A.2d 877, 880 (1995), and subsequent decisions regarding custody and placement are made on the basis of the best interests of the child. 42 Pa. C.S.A. § 6351; In the Interest of Laura Sweeney, 393 Pa.Super. 437, 574 A.2d 690, 691 (1990). Neither an adjudication of dependency nor a determination of the appropriate disposition of a dependent child is based on the intentions or states of mind of the party seeking the dependency adjudication. Therefore, a finding that the CYS defendants violated Ernst's right to substantive due process would not have involved the invalidation of any conclusion or judgment reached by the state court.4 Accordingly, the Rooker-Feldman doctrine did not preclude the court from exercising jurisdiction over Ernst's substantive due process claims against the CYS defendants. We have jurisdiction over the appeal therefrom pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291.
Section 1983 provides that "[e]very person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State ... subjects ... any citizen of the United States ... to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws shall be liable to the party injured." 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (emphasis added). Despite its broad language, the Supreme Court has consistently held that this provision did not abolish long-standing common law immunities from civil suits. See Burns v. Reed, 500 U.S. 478, 484, 111 S.Ct. 1934, 1938, 114 L.Ed.2d 547 (1991) (citing Pierson v. Ray, 386 U.S. 547, 554, 87 S.Ct. 1213, 1217-18, 18 L.Ed.2d 288 (1967)); Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U.S. 409, 418, 96 S.Ct. 984, 989, 47 L.Ed.2d 128 (1976). Instead, courts must determine whether a particular governmental official is entitled to immunity according to the following analysis:
[The] initial inquiry is whether [the] official claiming immunity under § 1983 can point to a common-law counterpart to the privilege he asserts. If "an official was accorded immunity from tort actions at common law when the Civil Rights Act was enacted in 1871, the Court next considers whether § 1983's history or purposes nonetheless counsel against recognizing the same immunity in § 1983 actions."
Malley v. Briggs, 475 U.S. 335, 340, 106 S.Ct. 1092, 1095, 89 L.Ed.2d 271 (1986) (quoting Tower v. Glover, 467 U.S. 914, 920, 104 S.Ct. 2820, 2824-25, 81 L.Ed.2d 758 (1984)). Courts "look to the common law and other history for guidance because [their] role is `not to make a freewheeling policy choice,' but rather to discern Congress' likely intent in enacting § 1983." Burns, 500 U.S. at 493, 111 S.Ct. at 1943 (quoting Malley, 475 U.S. at 342, 106 S.Ct. at 1096-97).
The fact that a particular public official did not enjoy absolute immunity at common law is not, however, determinative of the absolute immunity issue. Where the official claiming immunity occupies a governmental position that did not exist at common law, he may still be entitled to immunity if he performs official functions that are analogous to functions performed by those who were immune at common law. See Butz v. Economou, 438 U.S. 478, 98 S.Ct. 2894, 57 L.Ed.2d 895 (1978) (holding that officials who perform quasi-judicial and quasi-prosecutorial functions in administrative agency adjudications are entitled to the same immunities afforded to judges and prosecutors at common law); see also Forrester v. White, 484 U.S. 219, 224, 108 S.Ct. 538, 542-43, 98 L.Ed.2d 555 (1988) ("Running through our cases, with fair consistency, is a `functional' approach to immunity questions other than those that have been decided by express constitutional or statutory enactment. Under that approach, we examine the nature of the functions with which a particular official or class of officials has been lawfully entrusted, and we seek to evaluate the effect that exposure to particular forms of liability would likely have on the appropriate exercise of those functions."). It is therefore necessary for us to review the functions performed by officials to whom absolute immunity has been accorded in order to determine if child welfare workers perform analogous functions.
Under its historical and functional approach, the Supreme Court has held that certain officials "functioning as integral parts of the judicial process" are absolutely immune from civil suits under § 1983. McArdle v. Tronetti, 961 F.2d 1083, 1084 (3d Cir. 1992). For example, the Court has declared that judges, Pierson v. Ray, 386 U.S. 547, 87 S.Ct. 1213, 18 L.Ed.2d 288 (1967), prosecutors, Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U.S. 409, 96 S.Ct. 984, 47 L.Ed.2d 128 (1976), and witnesses, Briscoe v. LaHue, 460 U.S. 325, 103 S.Ct. 1108, 75 L.Ed.2d 96 (1983), are entitled to absolute immunity when they perform judicial or quasi-judicial acts that are integral parts of the judicial process.
Applying the principles set forth in Butz, Imbler, and their progeny to the instant case, we hold that the CYS defendants are entitled to absolute immunity for their actions on behalf of the state in preparing for, initiating, and prosecuting dependency proceedings. Their immunity is broad enough to include the formulation and presentation of recommendations to the court in the course of such proceedings. We reach this conclusion because (1) the functions performed by the CYS defendants in dependency proceedings are closely analogous to the functions performed by prosecutors in criminal proceedings; (2) the public policy considerations that countenance immunity for prosecutors are applicable to child welfare workers performing these functions; and (3) dependency proceedings incorporate important safeguards that protect citizens from unconstitutional actions by child welfare workers. With this holding, we join the courts of appeals of the Fourth, Sixth, Seventh, Eighth, and Ninth Circuits. See, e.g., Millspaugh v. County Dep't of Pub. Welfare of Wabash County, 937 F.2d 1172, 1176 (7th Cir.1991); Vosburg v. Department of Soc. Servs., 884 F.2d 133, 135 (4th Cir.1989); Salyer v. Patrick, 874 F.2d 374, 378 (6th Cir. 1989); Meyers v. Contra Costa County Dep't of Soc. Servs., 812 F.2d 1154, 1156 (9th Cir. 1987).6
We expressly stated [in Imbler] that "the duties of the prosecutor in his role as advocate for the State involve actions preliminary to the initiation of a prosecution and actions apart from the courtroom," and are nonetheless entitled to absolute immunity.... We have not retreated ... from the principle that acts undertaken by a prosecutor in preparing for the initiation of judicial proceedings or for trial, and which occur in the course of his role as an advocate for the State, are entitled to the protections of absolute immunity. Those acts must include the professional evaluation of the evidence assembled by the police and appropriate preparation for its presentation at trial or before a grand jury after a decision to seek an indictment has been made.
During the bench trial, Ernst attempted to prove that CYS had a policy or custom of violating the substantive due process rights of the families with which it was involved by calling several witnesses to testify about their dissatisfaction with CYS's handling of their cases. After the record had been closed and the parties had offered closing argument, Ernst's counsel, perhaps realizing that the testimony then in evidence would not suffice to prove a "policy or custom" of unconstitutional conduct by CYS, urged the court to also consider the possibility that CYS was liable under § 1983 for substantive due process violations committed by a CYS official with policymaking authority. See Pembaur v. City of Cincinnati, 475 U.S. 469, 480-81, 106 S.Ct. 1292, 1298-99, 89 L.Ed.2d 452 (1986) (holding that municipality may be liable under § 1983 for constitutional deprivation that occurs because of a single action taken by an official with final decisionmaking authority to take such action). As proof of such unconstitutional conduct by a CYS policy-maker, Ernst's counsel directed the court to an affidavit by Wayne Stevenson, the director of CYS, that had been submitted with CYS's motion for summary judgment. According to the affidavit, Stevenson was familiar with and had approved of the handling of the Ernst case. However, Stevenson had not been called to testify during the trial nor had the affidavit been offered into evidence. Accordingly, the district court ruled that it would not consider the contents of the affidavit in determining whether CYS was liable under § 1983.
Ernst argues on appeal that the district court erred in failing to take judicial notice of the affidavit as a judicial record in the case. See Fed.R.Evid. 201 (court shall, at any stage of a proceeding, take judicial notice, upon request by a party, of a fact not subject to reasonable dispute because it is generally known or is "capable of accurate and ready determination by resort to sources whose accuracy cannot reasonably be questioned"); Randy's Studebaker Sales, Inc. v. Nissan Motor Corp., 533 F.2d 510, 521 (10th Cir. 1976) ("the court may take judicial notice of its own records, especially in the same case"); McCormick on Evidence § 330, at 396 (4th ed. 1992). Ernst acknowledges that the doctrine of judicial notice only permits the court to take notice of the fact of the submission of the affidavit. Nonetheless, she argues that the contents of the affidavit are themselves admissible for their truth under Fed.R.Evid. 801(d)(2), which provides that a statement made by and offered against a party is not hearsay.
[S]tanding to sue may not be predicated upon an interest of the kind ... which is held in common by all members of the public, because of the necessarily abstract nature of the injury all citizens share. Concrete injury, whether actual or threatened, is that indispensable element of a dispute which serves in part to cast it in a form traditionally capable of judicial resolution. It adds the essential dimension of specificity to the dispute by requiring that the complaining party have suffered a particular injury caused by the action challenged as unlawful. This personal stake is what the Court has consistently held enables a complainant authoritatively to present to a court a complete perspective upon the adverse consequences flowing from the specific set of facts undergirding the grievance. ... Only concrete injury presents the factual context within which a court, aided by parties who argue within the context, is capable of making decisions.... [T]he requirement of concrete injury further serves the function of insuring that [constitutional] adjudication does not take place unnecessarily.
Here, Ernst failed to allege the kind of concrete and particularized injury necessary to establish standing to assert a First Amendment challenge to Pennsylvania's juvenile court closure provision. She has not alleged that she has ever been excluded under the closure provision from a proceeding to which she sought access. The only First Amendment allegation in her Third Amended Complaint asserts that "Sylvia Ernst's first amendment rights are being violated by not opening up the record of this case; courts are closed to press." Compl. ¶ 64. During argument before the district court on the First Amendment issue, Ernst's counsel agreed with the court that Ernst was "not complaining about her exclusion from a particular hearing but ... about the unconstitutionality of the statute because all the proceedings are closed to the press and public." App. at 872a (emphasis added).
THE COURT: I didn't make any decision. I'm disturbed with you, Ms. Borzillo. You are saying that I'm making decisions and I haven't made any decision. I am talking to people and I resent the fact that you are saying that I am making decisions. I haven't made any decision yet, —
THE COURT: I will not reconsider. It's too obvious to me that she is too personally involved in this case to the extent — well, you saw the way she acted and I don't have to say anymore, so that will take care of things for today.
The district court held that Borzillo was not entitled to immunity for actions taken during the time that she was "removed" from the case because those actions were "in breach of a court order" and as such were "not within the prosecutorial function." Ernst v. Children & Youth Servs. of Chester County, No. CIV.A. 91-3735, 1993 WL 343375, at *24 (E.D.Pa. Sept.3, 1993) (citing Chrissy F. by Medley v. Mississippi Dep't of Pub. Welfare, 925 F.2d 844 (5th Cir.1991)). On the merits, the court found that Borzillo's efforts to prevent Ernst from enjoying a single unsupervised visit with Susanne were "motivated by animosity and anger at Ernst's small victory" and "exceeded the bounds of zealous advocacy." Id. at *25. Because we conclude that Borzillo was not acting completely outside her authority as CYS's attorney, we reject the district court's conclusion and hold that Borzillo is entitled to absolute immunity for her actions taken on CYS's behalf on December 18-19, 1991.
The district court also concluded that the filing of the petition was "in breach of a court order." Ernst, 1993 WL 343375, at *24. While we agree that the existence of a court order directing that the challenged act not be done is highly relevant to, and will ordinarily be determinative of, whether a prosecuting attorney has acted in a "clear absence of authority," there were extenuating circumstances here.
The district court found it "disappointing that [the CYS] professionals were unable to submerge their personal views in dealing with a difficult woman or to give her sufficient credit for fighting placements out of genuine concern for [Susanne's] welfare." Ernst, 1993 WL 343375, at *23. There is ample evidence in the record to support this view, as well as the view that their inability to do so had unfortunate consequences for Susanne and her grandmother. Nevertheless, we must acknowledge, as did the district court, the interest of the state in ensuring the independent and effective operation of the agency charged with protecting the state's children. That overriding interest precludes this court from affording Ernst compensation for whatever injuries she may have suffered at the hands of CYS. We will affirm the district court's grant of judgment in favor of CYS and the CYS defendants. We will reverse the grant of judgment in favor of Ernst against Borzillo and remand for entry of judgment in favor of Borzillo.
FootNotes 1. We accept the extensive findings of fact made by the district court after a trial on the merits.
2. Susanne's father is believed to be deceased, and her mother has had only occasional telephone contact with Susanne and Ernst since Susanne was two years old.
3. A child is "dependent" under Pennsylvania law if he or she is "without proper parental care or control, subsistence, education as required by law, or other care or control necessary for his physical, mental, or emotional health, or morals." 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 6302.
4. For this reason, the CYS defendants' contention that Ernst's § 1983 claims are barred by the doctrine of collateral estoppel also fails. Because the state court never made any decision regarding whether the defendants, in formulating recommendations to the state court regarding Susanne's dependency status, violated Ernst's substantive due process rights, the district court here was not precluded by the doctrine of collateral estoppel from entertaining Ernst's substantive due process claims. See O'Leary v. Liberty Mutual Ins. Co., 923 F.2d 1062, 1065-66 (3d Cir.1991) ("Under Pennsylvania law, ... a prior determination of a legal issue is conclusive in a subsequent action between the parties on the same or a different claim when (1) the issue was actually litigated; (2) the issue was determined by a valid and final judgment; and (3) the determination was essential to the judgment.").
5. An order denying summary judgment on immunity grounds is immediately appealable because an immediate appeal is necessary to adequately protect the government official's interest in avoiding the time and expense of litigation. See Mitchell v. Forsyth, 472 U.S. 511. 525, 105 S.Ct. 2806, 2814-15, 86 L.Ed.2d 411 (1985); Giuffre v. Bissell, 31 F.3d 1241, 1245 (3d Cir. 1994).
6. Justices Thomas and Scalia recently criticized the appellate court cases that have held that social workers are entitled to absolute immunity for quasi-prosecutorial acts on the ground that
7. We emphasize that our holding concerns only actions taken by child welfare workers in the context of dependency proceedings. Like our sister courts in the Fifth, Sixth, Seventh, and Tenth Circuits, we would be unwilling to accord absolute immunity to "investigative or administrative" actions taken by child welfare workers outside the context of a judicial proceeding. See Snell v. Tunnell, 920 F.2d 673 (10th Cir.1990) (holding that pre-adjudicatory investigative activities by child welfare workers are entitled only to qualified immunity); Achterhof v. Selvaggio, 886 F.2d 826 (6th Cir.1989) (holding that opening and investigating child abuse case and placing parent's name on central registry of abusers are investigative and administrative activities entitled only to qualified immunity); Austin v. Borel, 830 F.2d 1356 (5th Cir.1987) (holding that filing of complaint that allowed child services to obtain custody but did not initiate adjudicative proceeding was analogous to police officer's complaint filed to obtain arrest warrant and was therefore entitled only to qualified immunity) (citing Malley v. Briggs, 475 U.S. 335, 106 S.Ct. 1092, 89 L.Ed.2d 271 (1986)); Millspaugh v. County Dep't of Pub. Welfare of Wabash County, 937 F.2d 1172 (7th Cir.1991) (same).
8. Although Borzillo does not exercise independent judgment in determining what specific recommendations are made to the court regarding the appropriate disposition of a dependent child, see supra, p. 496, she exercises independent judgment in offering legal advice to CYS on such issues as, for example, whether there is sufficient evidence to pursue a dependency adjudication. Moreover, in representing CYS before the court, Borzillo clearly acts as an advocate on behalf of the state in a role that is "intimately associated" with the judicial process. Thus, her duties, like those of the CYS defendants, are closely analogous to those of a prosecutor advocating on behalf of the state in a criminal prosecution. Accordingly, for reasons similar to those set forth in Part III-A, we agree with the district court that Borzillo is entitled to absolute immunity for her representation of CYS.
9. In the course of reaching its contrary conclusion, the district court suggested that Borzillo improperly failed to disclose to Judge Wood the fact that Judge Melody had removed her from the case. The basis for this suggestion is not clear to us, but, in any event, it does not alter our conclusion that Borzillo did not act in clear absence of authority. If Borzillo did not receive Judge Melody's December 18th letter before she filed her petition on that day, we believe the "removal" situation was sufficiently ambiguous that a disclosure on the subject was not required. Even if Borzillo received Judge Melody's letter before her filing with Judge Wood, we believe, as we have explained, that a reasonable attorney in Borzillo's position reasonably could have believed that seeking review before another judge was not something Judge Melody intended to preclude. Moreover, if Borzillo received Judge Melody's letter before filing, she would have known from the face of the letter that a copy had been dispatched to Judge Wood.