Court Opinion

ID: 9485807
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 11:30:28.333805+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:51:22.219483
License: Public Domain

KING, Circuit Judge,
concurring in the judgment:
I agree with the majority’s holding that the caseworkers, Bennett and George, are entitled to qualified immunity as a matter of law. Unlike the majority, however, I do not reach the question whether Doe has alleged the violation of a “clearly established” constitutional right, as required by Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 818, 102 S.Ct. 2727, 2738, 73 L.Ed.2d 396 (1982). This is because, in my view, Doe’s allegations fail “at an analytically earlier stage of the inquiry into qualified immunity.” Siegert v. Gilley, — U.S. -, -, 111 S.Ct. 1789, 1791, 114 L.Ed.2d 277 (1991). Specifically, I would hold that Bennett and George are entitled to qualified immunity because Doe has not asserted the violation of a constitutional right at all. See id. at -, 111 S.Ct. at 1793.
I.
Initially, I note that the allegations in Doe’s amended complaint, if true, are “nightmarish.” Two child protective services workers, in a rush to prove that Doe sexually abused his young children, launched a four-month investigation which may best be described as a “witch hunt.” Among other things, the two workers: suppressed the results of reports indicating that no sexual abuse had occurred; misrepresented to authorities the nature of the findings in those reports; obtained, in secret and through deception, a court order awarding custody of Doe’s son to his mother; and gave false information to the District Attorney’s office in an effort to have the children removed from the temporary custody of their paternal grandparents. As a result of the deception practiced by these two workers, Doe was effectively denied all contact with his children for some four months, when he was ultimately exonerated.
That the actions of which Doe complains are egregious, however, does not mean that he has asserted the violation of a federally protected right, as required by 42 U.S.C. § 1988. After all, the gravamen of his complaint is malicious prosecution, a state law tort claim. Thus, as the majority recognizes, “[t]he issue confronting us is whether, and under what circumstances, malicious prosecution might rise to the level of a constitutional violation for which § 1983 provides a remedy.” Majority Opinion at 1418.
II.
The majority suggests that civil malicious prosecution, such as that alleged in this case, may give rise to a constitutional claim where egregious conduct is present. However, it never actually decides the question. Rather, the majority assumes that an “egregious” civil malicious prosecution could violate the constitution, only to then hold that the right at issue was not clearly established in 1990, when George and Bennett allegedly conducted their bad faith investigation.
I would approach all malicious prosecution claims under § 1983 in a different way. The Fifth Circuit has, admittedly, flip-flopped on the question of whether malicious prosecution is independently cognizable under § 1983. See Brummett v. Camble, 946 F.2d 1178, 1180 n. 2 (5th Cir.1991), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 112 S.Ct. 2323, 119 L.Ed.2d 241 (1992). In my view, the better answer is that such a claim is not in and of itself cognizable under § 1983. As Judge Posner explained in Mahoney v. Kesery, 976 F.2d 1054, 1060 (7th Cir.1992), “[i]f defamation is not actionable [as a constitutional tort, see Paul v. Davis, 424 U.S. 693 [96 S.Ct. 1155, 47 L.Ed.2d 405] (1976) ], it is difficult to believe that malicious prosecution is.” See also Albright v. Oliver, 975 F.2d 343, 345-346 (7th Cir.1992), cert. granted, — U.S. -, 113 S.Ct. 1382, 122 L.Ed.2d 757 (1993). This does not mean, however, that actions amounting to defamation or malicious prosecution can never form the basis for a § 1983 claim. For example, “either tort can be a link in a chain showing a deprivation of liberty or property without due process of law.” Mahoney, 976 F.2d at 1060 (citing Raysor v. *1422Port Authority, 768 F.2d 34, 39-40 (2d Cir.1985), cert. denied, 475 U.S. 1027, 106 S.Ct. 1227, 89 L.Ed.2d 337 (1986)).1
Thus, to the extent that Doe has sought relief solely on the basis of a malicious prosecution, I would hold that the allegations do not, in the words of Siegert, assert the violation of a constitutional right at all. To the extent he is asserting a deprivation of liberty or property without due process of law, however, his allegations must be scrutinized more closely.
III.
As I read Doe’s amended complaint, he has clearly sought to link George and Bennett’s malicious prosecution to a chain showing the deprivation of a liberty interest without due process of law. Doe specifically asserts that the defendants violated his
fundamental liberty interest in the care, custody, and management of the minor children which is a protected Fourteenth Amendment right pursuant to Santosky v. Kramer, [455 U.S. 745, 102 S.Ct. 1388, 71 L.Ed.2d 599 (1982)], because the action of the defendants, as outlined below, sought to destroy the familial bonds without a fundamentally fair procedure and without sufficient basis in fact.
(emphasis added). The case on which Doe relies — namely, Santosky v. Kramer—is a procedural due process case. There, the Court held that when a state moves to destroy family bonds (i.e., by terminating the parent-child relationship), it must provide the parents with fundamentally fair procedures. Because of Doe’s reliance on Santosky (and his allegations that he was denied a “fundamentally fair procedure”), I would construe his complaint as attempting to assert a procedural due process claim.2
Doe’s allegations, if true, clearly satisfy the first two elements of a procedural due process claim. That is, he has sufficiently alleged that he was deprived of a liberty interest. His amended complaint recounts that, during the four-month investigation, he basically lost custody of his children.3 And, in Santosky the Court made clear that natural parents have a “fundamental liberty interest ... in the care, custody, and management of their child” — an interest that may be destroyed only with “fundamentally fair procedures.” See 455 U.S. at 753-54, 102 S.Ct. at 1394-95. Even though Doe was only temporarily deprived of this liberty interest, it seems entirely consistent with Santosky to require that this deprivation occur in the context of fundamentally fair procedures. See Hooks v. Hooks, 771 F.2d 935, 941 (6th Cir.1985) (reading Santosky to require that any deprivation of a parent’s liberty interest in the custody of his or her children be “accomplished by procedures meeting the requirements of due process”).
The problem with Doe’s procedural due process claim ultimately lies with his ability *1423to demonstrate — on the facts as alleged— that he was deprived of custody of his children without due process of law. Several courts have held that due process does not mandate a prior hearing in cases where emergency action may be needed to protect a child. See, e.g., Weller v. Department of Social Servs. for Baltimore, 901 F.2d 387, 393 (4th Cir.1990). Of course, when the state temporarily deprives a parent of custody of a child, it must provide a prompt post-deprivation hearing to ratify the emergency action. See id at 396. This is basically what occurred in Doe’s case — at least if we accept his allegations as true. Although he temporarily lost custody of his children, the state court procedures ultimately exonerated him and, as a result, his liberty interest was restored.
To the extent that Doe is seeking compensation from George and Bennett for their malicious actions in bringing about this temporary deprivation, I would hold that Louisiana’s post-deprivation procedures provide Doe with all the process he is due.4 See Mahoney, 976 F.2d at 1061 (noting possibility that Supreme Court’s decision in Parratt v. Taylor, 451 U.S. 527, 101 S.Ct. 1908, 68 L.Ed.2d 420 (1981), has “wiped out” all due process/malieious prosecution claims). Louisiana clearly recognizes an action for civil malicious prosecution. See Jones v. Soileau, 448 So.2d 1268, 1271 (La.1984) (the first element of a malicious prosecution claim is “the commencement or continuance of an original criminal or civil judicial proceeding”) (emphasis added). Moreover, Louisiana law gives caseworkers like George and Bennett only good faith immunity in carrying out their investigative responsibilities.5 Given that Louisiana’s procedures allow tort recovery for the sort of bad faith child abuse investigations at issue here, Doe simply cannot demonstrate that he was deprived of his liberty interest in the custody of his children without fundamentally fair procedures. Cf. Vinson v. Campbell County Fiscal Court, 820 F.2d 194, 199 (6th Cir.1987) (concluding that summary judgment on procedural due process/false imprisonment claim was proper when plaintiff alleged “only that she was deprived of a liberty interest because established state procedures were not followed, [and] not that the established state procedure effected a deprivation”); Fitzgerald v. Williamson, 787 F.2d 403, 408 (8th Cir.1986) (holding that state law procedures concerning parents’ custodial rights were adequate for due process purposes).
Thus, I would hold that, under Siegert, Doe has not asserted a violation of his right to due process of law. George and Bennett are, consequently, entitled to qualified immunity on Doe’s procedural due process claim, but only because state procedures provide him with an adequate post-deprivation remedy. This case might be different if Louisiana gave its child protective workers absolute immunity or if, after pursuing his state court remedy, Doe had alleged that the procedures employed by the state were in some way constitutionally defective. But he has not made such allegations. Accordingly, I must conclude that he has not asserted the violation of any federally protected right.

. Fourth Amendment protections may also be implicated in cases involving malicious prosecution. See, e.g., Sanders v. English, 950 F.2d 1152, 1159 (5th Cir.1992).

. The majority construes Doe’s complaint to raise only a substantive due process claim; yet it relies primarily on procedural due process cases in determining that George and Bennett are entitled to qualified immunity. Doe has, admittedly, been less than clear on the question of whether he is asserting a procedural due process claim, a substantive due process claim, or both. My review of his amended complaint, however, convinces me that he has sought to raise a procedural due process claim. Moreover, because I do not think that there is an independent federal claim for "malicious prosecution,” I would necessarily reject any attempt to phrase such a claim as a substantive due process violation. After all, the essence of a malicious prosecution claim is an egregious abuse of the legal process; if such allegations were sufficient to raise a substantive due process claim, then every claim of malicious prosecution would be converted, ipso facto, into a federal claim.

.According to his complaint, he initially complied with one of the caseworkers' request that he have no contact with his children. There is some question as to whether this action would constitute a “deprivation” for purposes of due process analysis. See Weller v. Department of Social Servs. for Baltimore, 901 F.2d 387, 393 (4th Cir.1990) ("If one voluntarily surrenders a liberty interest to the State, there has been no 'deprivation' of that interest by the State, and no due process violation.”) However, there can be no question that when the state district judge placed Doe's children in the temporary custody of their paternal grandparents, he was "deprived” of a liberty interest within the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment.

. Indeed, it is difficult to see how the state could have intervened to prevent the kind of abuse about which Doe complains.

. Specifically, at the time of the events in this case, a caseworker could be held civilly or criminally liable if (1) in bad faith she "conducted] an investigation, ma[de] an investigative judgment or disposition, or release[d] or use[d] information contained in the central registry,” or (2) she ”ma[de] a report known to be false or with reckless disregard for the truth of the report.” See La.Rev Stat.Ann. § 14:403 (West Supp.1993) (historical notes).