Nemcik v. Krippendorf

Background

Tanya Nemcik proceeded without a lawyer and had been allowed to proceed without paying the filing fee. After an earlier recommendation that her original complaint be dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, the court adopted that recommendation and allowed her to amend. The court then reviewed her first amended complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e), which requires screening of a complaint filed by a person proceeding without paying the filing fee.

The lawsuit concerned custody proceedings in state court. Nemcik sued Santa Clara County and its Department of Family & Children’s Services, the City of Palo Alto and its police department, Brian Krippendorf, and other defendants. The opinion states that she asserted multiple claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a law that permits claims for violations of federal rights by persons acting under color of state law.

Reasons for Dismissal

The court dismissed the first cause of action for failure to state a claim. Nemcik alleged that the County and the Department did not adequately investigate issues involving her children, including one child’s medical health, and inadequately trained social workers. The court held that she did not identify a violated federal right, which is required for a § 1983 claim. The court also questioned whether she had standing because the alleged injury may have affected her son rather than her. To the extent she was asserting her son’s rights, the court stated that she was not shown to be his general guardian or guardian ad litem and that a lawyer would still be required to represent him.

The second cause of action alleged defamation by the County, the Department, and Krippendorf. The court stated that, even assuming a federal right was involved, the claim failed to state a claim. Based on its review of the supporting documents, the court concluded that the County or Department did not themselves state that Nemcik had accused Krippendorf of sexual abuse; at most, they reported that another person had reported abuse and said Nemcik had implicated Krippendorf. As to Krippendorf, the court relied on its earlier explanation that he was a private actor who could not be sued under § 1983 without, for example, joint action with state officials. Nemcik had not alleged collusion between him and the County or Department.

The third cause of action alleged that the City of Palo Alto and its police department defamed Nemcik. The court dismissed it because the allegations that those defendants made false reports were entirely conclusory.

The fourth cause of action alleged that all defendants conspired to interfere with Nemcik’s due-process rights and her rights of companionship, society, care, and custody concerning her children. The court understood this claim to be based on allegedly false reports submitted to the state court. It dismissed the claim because Nemcik’s own submissions either did not substantiate the alleged false reports or made only conclusory allegations. The alleged conspiracy among the County, police, and Krippendorf was also conclusory.

The fifth cause of action alleged that defendants fabricated evidence, that the state court relied on it in making custody decisions, and that some allegedly false reports were submitted confidentially and withheld from Nemcik. The court dismissed this claim because the alleged false reports were not supported by specific allegations or were conclusory. It also found speculative Nemcik’s assertion that a withheld report must have contained false information.

The sixth cause of action alleged abuse of process based on the alleged false reports and a conspiracy between Krippendorf and the state court. The court dismissed it because the allegations of false reports were not supported by specific, plausible facts and the alleged conspiracy lacked factual support.

The seventh cause of action alleged intentional infliction of emotional distress against all defendants. The court stated that this was a state-law claim, not a § 1983 claim, and declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over it after dismissing the federal claims. To the extent Nemcik intended to bring a § 1983 claim instead, the court treated it as relying on the claims already discussed.

Disposition

The court dismissed the first amended complaint. It declined to give Nemcik leave to file a second amended complaint, citing her multiple cases in the district and the court’s view that she was aware that conclusory allegations could lead to dismissal. The clerk was directed to enter final judgment and close the file. Judge Edward M. Chen signed the order on November 7, 2019.