Calgaro v. St. Louis County, No. 17-2279 (8th Cir. 2019)
Annotate this Case
Plaintiff filed suit against several parties, alleging violations of her parental rights over one of her minor children, E.J.K., under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. E.J.K. obtained a letter from Mid-Minnesota Legal Aid concluding that E.J.K. was legally emancipated under Minnesota law. Although the letter had no legal effect, E.J.K. was able to obtain funding for medical services and other living expenses, as well as gender transition care.
The Eighth Circuit held that the district court properly granted judgment on the pleadings for St. Louis County (including the official-capacity claim against the interim director) because plaintiff did not adequately plead a claim under 42 U.S.C. 1983. In this case, plaintiff's conclusory assertion that the County acted based on a policy or custom was insufficient to state a claim. The court also held that plaintiff failed to state a claim for damages against the then-interim director of Public Health and Human Services; neither of the medical provider defendants were acting under state law; the school district's alleged handling of plaintiff's case, assuming it interfered with plaintiff's rights, was insufficient to establish a custom or practice under Monell v. Dep't of Soc. Servs., 436 U.S. 658, 694 (1978); the school principal was entitled to qualified immunity; and declaratory and injunctive relief claims were moot.
Court Description: Colloton, Author, with Wollman and Benton, Circuit Judges] Civil case - Civil rights. Plaintiff's conclusory assertion that the defendant County acted based on a policy or custom is insufficient to state a claim and her allegation that the County made an erroneous determination that her child was emancipated does not establish a a policy or custom that County deprives parents of their constitutional rights; claim against then-interim director of Public Health and Human Services does not allege that she personally took any action that violated plaintiff's rights, and she is not liable for the unconstitutional acts of her subordinates; neither of the sued medical providers were acting under color of state law; school district's decision to deny plaintiff's request for her child's school records failed to establish a custom or practice under Monell; school principal was entitled to qualified immunity on plaintiff's individual capacity claims as the rights plaintiff claims he violated are not clearly established; claims for declaratory and injunctive relief were mooted by the child's attainment of the age of majority.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.