Partridge v. Minnesota Board of Social Work

Background

Bruce J. Partridge filed a complaint without a lawyer against the Minnesota Board of Social Work and Dawn M. Eckdahl. The opinion states that Eckdahl is also referred to as Dawn Murawski and that she is a licensed social worker and Partridge’s former foster mother. Partridge alleged that Eckdahl had an inappropriate sexual relationship with him and argued that, because he was a vulnerable adult and had been found not competent to stand trial, he could not consent to that relationship.

Partridge had filed a complaint against Eckdahl with the Minnesota Board of Social Work. After investigating, the Board did not find enough facts to take action against Eckdahl’s license. Partridge challenged the quality of that investigation and the Board’s decision.

Partridge also cited the Indian Child Welfare Act, the Multi-Ethnic Placement Act of 1994, the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Act, the “Social Work Practice Act,” and other provisions or laws in his complaint. He applied to proceed without paying the filing fee upfront, moved to enter exhibits, and moved for appointment of a lawyer.

Screening of the Complaint

Because Partridge is incarcerated, the court reviewed his complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. That statute requires dismissal of a prisoner’s complaint, or part of it, if it fails to state a claim for relief or seeks money from a defendant immune from suit. The court applied the rule that a complaint must include enough specific facts to make a legal claim plausible, while construing a self-represented litigant’s complaint liberally.

The court determined that the Indian Child Welfare Act concerns federal standards for removing Indian children from their families and placing children in foster or adoptive homes. Partridge did not allege facts connecting his claims to that subject or identify a provision providing him relief.

The court explained that the Multi-Ethnic Placement Act prohibits discrimination based on race, color, or national origin in foster care, child placement, and adoptive-parent licensing. Partridge did not allege discrimination in those areas or allege that the defendants had placement authority. The court therefore concluded that he failed to state a claim under either the Indian Child Welfare Act or the Multi-Ethnic Placement Act.

The court also noted that 42 U.S.C. § 662 had been repealed. It found that the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Act addresses eligibility for certain federal benefits, and that Partridge did not allege facts connecting his claims to that Act or to any federal benefit. The court likewise found no connection between his allegations and the Social Security Act or the Ticket to Work and Work Incentives Improvement Act.

State-Law Claims and Disposition

The court understood Partridge’s reference to the “Social Work Practice Act” as referring to Minnesota’s Social Work Practice Act. That law regulates social-work practice in Minnesota and describes the duties of the Minnesota State Board of Social Work. The court held that it lacked original federal-question jurisdiction over alleged violations of that state law. It also found that Partridge had not alleged diversity of citizenship and had identified no other basis for federal jurisdiction. The state-law claims were therefore dismissed for lack of jurisdiction under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(h)(3).

The court declined to search Partridge’s pleadings for possible claims that he had not clearly stated. It dismissed the entire matter without prejudice: the federal-law claims for failure to state a claim under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1), and the state-law claims for lack of jurisdiction.

The court denied Partridge’s application to proceed without paying the filing fee upfront. It stated that he could proceed without paying an initial partial filing fee because his prison-account deposits and balance were insufficient, but that he remained responsible for the unpaid balance of the $350 statutory filing fee through later installments, regardless of whether he succeeded. The court denied the pending motions as moot.

Order

The complaint was DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1). The application to proceed without prepaying the filing fee was DENIED. The pending motions were DENIED as moot. Partridge remains required to pay the unpaid $350 statutory filing fee through the installment process described in 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(2).