Mitchell v. Dakota County Social Services, No. 19-1419 (8th Cir. 2020)
Annotate this Case
Plaintiff, his three children, and Stop Child Protection Services from Legally Kidnapping filed suit against the county, DCSS, nine county officials, and three officials. Plaintiffs' constitutional, federal, and state law claims stemmed from a Child in Need of Protection of Services (CHIPS) proceeding by DCSS.
The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's grant of defendants' motion to dismiss, holding that plaintiffs lacked standing to challenge the facial constitutionality of three Minnesota child welfare statutes; plaintiff was not entitled to monetary damages under 42 U.S.C. 1983, because he failed to establish a due process violation, an equal protection claim, and municipal liability and conspiracy; and the children are also not entitled to damages under section 1983. The court also held that, even if the complaint was sufficiently pled and established a constitutional
violation, defendants would be entitled to qualified immunity. Furthermore, the court held that no conduct by the individual defendants, as alleged in the amended complaint, rose to the level of maliciousness required to deny official immunity under Minnesota law. Finally, plaintiffs are not entitled to declaratory relief.
Court Description: [Erickson, Author, with Grasz and Kobes, Circuit Judges] Civil case - Civil rights. In an action alleging three Minnesota child welfare statutes were facially invalid, the district court did not err in finding the plaintiffs did not have standing as they were no longer residents of the state and their claim that they might one day return was too speculative to show a real and immediate threat of repeat injury; without an injury in fact, plaintiff Mitchell and his children lack standing; nor was the speculative future action alleged in the complaint sufficient to confer standing on any individual member of the plaintiff association; as a result, neither the individual plaintiffs nor the association have standing to challenge the facial constitutionality of the statutes; a claim the procedures used in the child abuse proceeding violated plaintiff Mitchell's substantive due process rights rejected; comments of a case agent, while unprofessional, were not conscience shocking and did not constitute a constitutional violation; claim that defendants fabricated evidence was only a conclusory allegation and was insufficient to raise a plausible due process claim; case agent's comments had no impact on the outcome of the proceedings, and plaintiff failed to plead a racial discrimination claim on which relief may be granted; because Mitchell has failed to plead a plausible constitutional claim his municipality liability claims fail; children's claims fail for the same reasons outlined above; removal of the children from the family home based on a reasonable suspicion of child abuse did not shock the conscience, and the children did not establish a viable substantive due process violation for their prolonged separation from Mitchell; in any event, because all of the actions taken by all of the defendants were in response to a reasonable suspicion of child abuse, they were entitled to qualified immunity; with respect to plaintiffs' state law claim the defendants were entitled to immunity because none of the conduct alleged in the complaint rose to the level of maliciousness required to deny official immunity under Minnesota law.
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.