Charnesky v. Piper

Background

Jill Charnesky sued nineteen defendants over their alleged involvement in child-protection proceedings involving her and her son, B.C. The defendants included Minnesota Department of Human Services officials, Olmsted County officials and employees, a court-appointed lawyer, a private-practice psychiatrist, and a foster-care provider. Charnesky proceeded without a lawyer and claimed to sue both for herself and as B.C.’s representative.

The complaint alleged that a child-in-need-of-protection-or-services petition was based on false allegations about Charnesky’s ability to care for B.C.; that B.C. was placed in unsafe settings; and that officials retaliated against Charnesky after she reported B.C.’s assault. The claims included civil-rights claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a conspiracy claim, an Americans with Disabilities Act retaliation claim, and a claim alleging prosecutorial misconduct.

Claims brought for B.C.

The court held that Charnesky could not litigate B.C.’s claims because a nonlawyer generally may not represent another person in federal court, including her own child. The court dismissed all claims brought on B.C.’s behalf without prejudice. This meant the dismissal did not bar B.C. from taking steps to pursue the claims through an appropriate representative.

Charnesky asked the court to appoint counsel for B.C. The court explained that federal law permits a court to request volunteer counsel but does not authorize it to force a lawyer to accept a civil case. The court declined to take further action to secure counsel, citing the complexities of litigating B.C.’s claims alongside Charnesky’s claims and uncertainty about whether B.C. wanted to participate in the litigation.

Department of Human Services defendants

Charnesky stated in a signed filing and confirmed at the hearing that she intended to dismiss the four Department of Human Services defendants: Tony Lourey, Nikki Farago, Jamie Sorenson, and Karen Haugerud. The court treated that filing as a notice of voluntary dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(i).

The court dismissed all claims against those defendants without prejudice and denied their motion to dismiss as moot.

Claims against Suhler, Jenkins, and Teed

The court granted the motions to dismiss filed by Frederick Suhler, Susan Jenkins, M.D., and Judith Teed. As to claims brought for B.C., each motion was granted and those claims were dismissed without prejudice.

As to Charnesky’s own claims, the court dismissed the claims against each of those three defendants with prejudice. The court applied the pleading standard for a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, which requires factual allegations making liability plausible rather than merely possible.

For the § 1983 claims, the court explained that the plaintiff must allege a violation of a federal right by someone acting under color of state law—that is, using authority or conduct fairly attributable to the state. The court found that Charnesky did not plausibly allege this requirement for any of the three defendants.

The court found that Suhler’s alleged inadequate performance occurred while he represented Charnesky as a court-appointed lawyer. Under the cited law, representation by appointed or retained counsel is not state action for § 1983 purposes. Charnesky also did not plead facts showing that Suhler conspired with state officials.

The court found that Jenkins was alleged to be a private-practice psychiatrist. Her receipt of county payment and submission of reports or testimony to a court did not, without more, make her a state actor. The complaint also did not plausibly allege that she conspired with state officials.

The court likewise found that Teed, a foster-care provider, was a private party and independent contractor under Minnesota law. Charnesky did not plausibly allege that Teed’s conduct was directed by state officials or resulted from an agreement with them to violate Charnesky’s rights.

The court also dismissed Charnesky’s Americans with Disabilities Act retaliation claims against Suhler, Jenkins, and Teed. Even assuming that reporting B.C.’s assault was protected activity and that the alleged conduct was adverse action, Charnesky did not plausibly allege a causal connection. The court noted that Suhler’s alleged conduct began before the assault, that Charnesky did not allege Jenkins knew about the assault or report, and that she did not allege Teed acted because of the report.

Olmsted County defendants

The Olmsted County defendants sought dismissal only of claims brought for B.C. and dismissal of two counts brought solely for B.C. The court dismissed the claims brought for B.C. without prejudice.

The Olmsted County defendants also asked the court to require Charnesky to reply to paragraphs 39 and 40 of their answer, which asserted immunity defenses. The court granted that request under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 7(a)(7) and ordered Charnesky to file specific, non-conclusory factual allegations responding to each subpart by May 3, 2019.

The court ordered the Olmsted County defendants, within fourteen days after that reply was docketed, to notify the court whether they intended to file an immediate motion concerning immunity and which claims they would not make the subject of such a motion. Discovery remained stayed until further notice.

Other motions and sealing

The court denied Charnesky’s oral motion to amend the complaint without prejudice. It determined that her reply to the immunity defenses would be a more effective way to address the issues she identified.

The court denied Charnesky’s motion to unseal the complaint. It concluded that the complaint and other filings contained B.C.’s name and extensive personal and medical information, and that protecting those privacy interests outweighed the general right of public access to court records. Unless a party objected by April 19, 2019, the court ordered specified filings to remain under seal indefinitely and specified other filings to be unsealed. The court directed that future public filings identify B.C. only by his initials and that filings implicating his privacy be submitted under temporary seal when appropriate.

Disposition

The court dismissed without prejudice all claims against Tony Lourey, Nikki Farago, Jamie Sorenson, and Karen Haugerud, and denied their motion to dismiss as moot. It granted the Olmsted County defendants’ motion in the specified respects, including dismissal without prejudice of B.C.’s claims and the required reply concerning immunity defenses. It granted the motions of Frederick Suhler, Susan Jenkins, M.D., and Judith Teed, dismissing B.C.’s claims without prejudice and Charnesky’s claims with prejudice. It denied the motion to unseal and denied the motion to amend without prejudice.