Capolupo v. Eills

Background

Carrie Ann Capolupo proceeded without a lawyer and sued social workers Kristen Eills, Kimberly Schneider, and Juan Carlos Enriquez-Paredes; Deputy County Counsel Rory Kalin; Humboldt County; and unidentified sheriff’s deputies. She challenged a child-welfare investigation concerning reports that she used boiling water or hot-tea-soaked rags during a religious purification practice involving her infant daughter. After the children’s parents did not allow social workers and deputies to enter the home or see the children, social worker Kristen Eills sought a court order.

A Humboldt County Superior Court juvenile judge found reasonable cause to believe the children came within the California child-welfare statute and authorized entry into the home, interviews, and a medical examination of Capolupo’s daughter. The order required the examination within 72 hours. Capolupo alleged that, while the order was being carried out, deputies seized her and forced her to sit on a couch, and that a deputy may have taken her phone. She also appeared to allege that someone at the hospital prevented her from leaving while her daughter was examined.

Capolupo’s Second Amended Complaint asserted 11 claims. The federal claims alleged religious-liberty and retaliation violations, unreasonable searches and seizures, excessive force, malicious prosecution, due process violations, and municipal liability under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, which provides a claim for certain constitutional violations by state actors. The remaining claims arose under California law, including claims involving the California Constitution, malicious prosecution, the Unruh Civil Rights Act, and California Penal Code section 4030.

Ruling on Parties and Claims

The court ruled that Capolupo had not properly added Yvonne Winter and Connie Beck. Although she mentioned them in the complaint’s introductory section, she did not identify specific acts connecting either person to her claims, did not name them in the numbered claims, and had not obtained permission or consent to add them. The court therefore ordered that Winter and Beck be dropped from the action.

For Claim 1, concerning religious liberty, retaliation, family association, and family privacy, the court found that Capolupo pleaded conclusions rather than facts showing a substantial burden on her religious practice, an unconstitutional intrusion into family privacy, or retaliation. The motion to dismiss Claim 1 was granted, and Claim 1 was dismissed with prejudice as to all defendants.

For Claim 2, the court treated the search and seizure allegations separately. It held that the home entry and inspection were authorized by a court order issued by a neutral judge and supported by probable cause. The search component was therefore dismissed with prejudice as to all defendants. But Capolupo’s allegations that unidentified deputies forced her to remain on a couch and possibly took her phone were unclear rather than necessarily incurable. The motion was granted and denied in part, and the seizure component was dismissed with prejudice as to Schneider, Eills, Enriquez-Paredes, Kalin, and Humboldt County, but dismissed without prejudice as to the unidentified sheriff’s deputies.

For Claim 3, the excessive-force claim, the court found that Capolupo did not describe what force was used. The motion was granted, and the claim was dismissed with prejudice as to all defendants.

For Claim 4, the Fourth Amendment malicious-prosecution claim, the court found that Capolupo did not allege that she was prosecuted in a criminal proceeding or allege the required elements of malicious prosecution. The motion was granted, and the claim was dismissed with prejudice as to all defendants.

For Claim 5, the due-process claim, the court treated the allegations as repeating the family-integrity and family-privacy allegations in Claim 1. It found those allegations insufficient. The motion was granted, and the claim was dismissed with prejudice as to all defendants.

For Claim 6, the municipal-liability claim against Humboldt County, the court found only boilerplate allegations about policies, practices, or customs and no specific facts connecting such a policy, practice, or custom to a constitutional violation. The motion was granted, and the claim was dismissed with prejudice.

For Claims 7 through 11, the state-law claims, the court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction after dismissing the federal claims that supplied its original jurisdiction. The court granted the motion and dismissed the state-law claims as to all defendants. The conclusion of the order states that the Second Amended Complaint was dismissed with prejudice as to all claims and parties except the Claim 2 seizure claim against unidentified deputies, which was dismissed without prejudice.

Leave to Amend and Final Disposition

The court granted leave to file an amended pleading limited to the unreasonable-seizure allegations involving the unidentified deputies. Any amended complaint could name only deputies believed to be responsible for seizing Capolupo or her phone. If their names were unknown, Capolupo could use fictitious or numeric names, explain why their identities were unknown, and later seek to substitute their actual names. The amended complaint also had to provide organized factual details about what happened, how long it lasted, where it occurred, and who was involved.

The defendants’ motion to dismiss was granted in part and denied in part. The Second Amended Complaint was dismissed with prejudice as to all claims and parties except the Claim 2 seizure claim against unidentified sheriff’s deputies, which was dismissed without prejudice. Capolupo was ordered to file an amended pleading, if at all, within 30 days of the order. Judge Robert M. Illman signed the order as a United States Magistrate Judge.