Davis v. Willheim

Background

Kent Davis sued Erica Willheim, Cynthia Arreola, Dominique Manfreda, Crystal Pierre, and other defendants under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a federal civil-rights statute. He also asserted state-law claims for intentional infliction of emotional distress, social worker malpractice, and injurious falsehood. Davis proceeded without a lawyer.

The lawsuit concerned Davis’s loss of custody of his child after he stabbed the child’s mother in the child’s presence in February 2008. The child was placed in the custody of New York City Administration for Children’s Services. The Family Court later denied Davis’s requests for visitation, relying at least in part on reports and recommendations from the child’s counselors. The publicly filed opinion redacts portions of those reports because of their sensitive content.

In an earlier round of the case, the court dismissed the federal claims against several defendants but left the state-law claims pending. The court later dismissed the claims against two other defendants because they were not served or because Davis did not pursue the required procedures. Willheim, Manfreda, and the City Defendants then filed the motions addressed in this opinion. Davis did not oppose those motions despite being given additional time and a warning that the motions would be decided without his response.

Federal Claims Against Willheim

The court applied the standard for a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim. Under that standard, the complaint’s factual allegations are accepted as true, but they must plausibly show that the defendant is legally responsible for the alleged violation. The court also considered Davis’s submissions liberally because he was representing himself, and it did not treat his failure to respond by itself as grounds for automatic dismissal.

The court dismissed the federal claims against Willheim because Davis did not plausibly allege that she was a state actor. Section 1983 generally provides a remedy only when a person acting for the state deprives someone of a federally protected right. The opinion states that Willheim was a clinician employed by the private Family Peace Program, which provided mental-health services to children. Davis alleged that the program worked closely with the City’s child-services agency and that Willheim submitted reports to Family Court, but the court held that those allegations did not show that Willheim’s conduct was controlled by, or fairly attributable to, the state.

The court also rejected the theory that Willheim was liable because she jointly acted with state officials. Merely communicating with state actors, submitting reports to Family Court, or participating in court proceedings did not establish the required connection to the state. The court added that Davis’s federal claims would also fail on the merits for the reasons given in its earlier related proceeding, but the stated basis for dismissal in this opinion was the failure to plausibly allege state action.

State-Law Claims and Disposition

After the federal claims against Willheim were dismissed and the other remaining federal claims had been resolved, no federal claims remained in the case. The court therefore considered whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction, meaning authority to hear related state-law claims in the same federal lawsuit.

The court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction. It emphasized that almost no discovery had occurred, there were no initial disclosures or case-management plan, no depositions or expert discovery had been completed, and there was no trial date. The court also noted that the case did not involve preemption issues and that Davis could pursue the state-law claims in state court.

The conclusion states that Willheim’s motion to dismiss was granted insofar as it sought dismissal of the federal claims against her. The court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Davis’s state-law claims and dismissed those claims without prejudice. The court directed the Clerk to terminate all pending motions, adjourn all remaining dates, and close the case.