Oglala Sioux Tribe et al v. Van Hunnik et al, No. 5:2013cv05020 - Document 341 (D.S.D. 2017)
Court Description: ORDER denying 290 Motion for Partial Summary Judgment; denying 295 Motion for Partial Summary Judgment. Signed by Chief Judge Jeffrey L. Viken on 9/29/17. (SB)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Oglala Sioux Tribe et al v. Van Hunnik et al Doc. 341 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF SOUTH DAKOTA WESTERN DIVISION CIV. 1 3-5020-JLV OGLALA SIOUX TRIBE and ROSEBUD SIOUX TRIBE, as parens patriae, to protect the rights of their tribal members; MADONNA PAPPAN, and LISA YOUNG, individually and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated, ORDER Plaintifs, vs. LISA FLEMING; MARK VARGO; HONORABLE CRAIG PFEIFLE; and LYNNE A. VALENTI, in their oficial capacities, Defendants. INTRODUCTION Plaintifs iled two motions or summary judgment against Lisa Fleming and Lynne Valenti, in their oficial capacities ("DSS Defendants "), together with statements of undisputed material acts and two legal memoranda. 290, 291 & 294-97). (Dockets The irst summary judgment motion seeks judgment against the DSS Defendants or their alleged "inadequate training and supervision " of their staf in the Department of Social Services Division of Child Protection Services Oices in Region 1 , Pennington County, South Dakota ("inadequate training and supervision claim "). (Docket 290 at p. 1). The second motion or summay judgment seeks judgment against the DSS Defendants or their alleged "ailure to ensure that placement of Indian children Dockets.Justia.com end[s] when the reason or placement ends " ("ailure to end placement claim "). (Docket 295). The DSS Defendants iled an objection to plaintifs'motions together with a supporting aidavit. (Dockets 313 & 314). Defendants'objection contends plaintifs'present motions or summay judgment address claims not included in the complaint and are thereore not properly beore the court. p. 12). (Docket 313 at Plaintifs iled a response in opposition to the objection. (Docket 334). The DSS Defendants iled a reply brief in support of their objection. (Docket 335). The DSS Defendants also iled extensive responses to both summary judgment motions, including responses to plaintifs'statements of undisputed acts and two legal memoranda. briefs in support of both motions. (Dockets 3 1 6-19 (Dockets 330 & & 326). Plaintifs iled reply 333). For the reasons stated below, the DSS Defendants'objection (Docket 313) is granted. ANALYSIS The DSS Defendants argue plaintifs'two motions or summary judgment are improperly beore the court because they constitute additional "claims not set orth in [the] Complaint. " (Docket 313 at p. 2). Defendants assert plaintifs' motion or summary judgment on the inadequate training and supervision claim includes two grounds not included in the ailure to train claim in the complaint, namely: 2 [The DSS) Defendants have ailed to adequately train their staf regarding how and when to return children to their homes; aid [The DSS) Defendants have ailed to adequately supervise their staf regarding how and when to return children to their homes. Id.at p.5. The DSS Defendants argue plaintifs may not amend their complaint to incorporate these new claims through "a brief ... advocating summary judgment." Id. at p. 9 (references omitted). "In order to have these claims considered or summay judgment," DSS Defendants submit "Plaintifs should be required to seek to amend their [c]omplaint and include the allegations upon which they now seek summary judgment,as required by Rule 8(a)." Id.at p. 1 1. Plaintifs assert the "[c]omplaint already contains an express claim of inadequate training and supervision and thereore there is no need to add another one. " Id. at p. 5 (emphasis omitted). Plaintifs contend that only during discovery on their ailure to train claim did they "learn[] or the irst time that the DSS Defendants had a policy of retaining children even after the reason or placement given parents at the 48-hour hearing has ended. " Id. at p. 8. Plaintifs argue "[t]he only diference is that the new issue involves a situation that occurs shortly after the 48-hour hearing rather than at the 48-hour hearing. The two issues,however,raise the same claim: that parents are being denied notice of the reason or continued custody. " Id. (emphasis omitted). "Because this claim is already in the [c]omplaint," plaintifs submit "there is no need . ..to amend the [c]omplaint to add another one." 3 Id. The court previously resolved in plaintifs' avor counts I and II of the complaint. (Dockets 150, 217, 301, 302, 303 & 304). Those claims asserted all of the "defendants' policies, practices and procedures relating to the removal of Native American children rom their homes during state court 48-hour hearings violate [25 U. S.C.§ 1922] and the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment." rulings. (Docket 150 at p.8). All defendants appealed the court's earlier (Dockets 309, 312 & 321). The only remaining claim in plaintifs' complaint requiring resolution is a ailure to train claim. See Docket 1 i! 46, 48, 97 & 128. In an earlier order denying all of the defendants' motions to dismiss the complaint, the court addressed plaintifs' ailure to train claim. "The complaint ... alleges DSS defendants ailed to train their staf on how to seek and secure or Indian parents the federal rights to which those parents are entitled and, as a result, Indian parents sufer irreparable injury. " (Docket 69 at p. 23) (referencing Docket 1 at i! 46 & 48). "Because [the DSS Defendants] . ...[do not] appear at the 48-hour proceedings personally, the claims made by plaintifs relate to a 'ailure to train' other DSS employees whom they supervise. To survive a motion to dismiss on a 'ailure to train' claim, plaintifs must show (1) the policymaker's training practices were inadequate, (2) the policymaker was deliberately indiferent to the rights of the plaintifs, and (3) the training deiciencies cause constitutional deprivation." Id. (internal citation omitted). "Speciically, plaintifs allege DSS defendant contribute to the plaintifs' injuries by ailing to provide a copy of the 4 petition and ICWA aidavit to Indian parents prior to the 48-hour hearing, by adopting the unconstitutional practices of the circuit court during 48-hour hearings, by ailing to ensure Indian parents receive an adequate post-deprivation hearing, and by ailing to properly work with Indian parents ollowing the 48-hour hearings. " Id. at p. 24. On this basis, the court ound plaintifs stated a viable ailure to train claim and denied the DSS defendants' motions to dismiss. Id. at p. 43. Plaintifs acknowledge the March 30, 2015, order (Docket 150) "resolved all of Plaintifs'claims except one, which is: Have [the DSS Defendants] adequately trained their staf to comply with Section 1922 of the Indian Child Welare Act, 25 U.S. C. § 1901 (Docket 159 at pp. 1-2). et seq.?" It is apparent plaintifs now want to expand the ailure to train claim to include additional allegations the DSS Defendants ailed to supervise their personnel or activities occurring after completion of the 48-hour hearing and the DSS Defendants ailed to end placement when the reasons or placement no longer exist. Under Rule 8(a)(2), a "pleading that states a claim or relief must contain . . . a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief. " Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). The purpose of this Rule is to give the defendants air notice of plaintifs'claims and the grounds upon which those claims rest. Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007). Ultimately, the purpose of the rule is to see "that all pleadings shall be so construed as to do 5 substantial justice. " Id. (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(); internal quotation marks and brackets omitted). Plaintifs may not "raise a new cause of action on a motion or summary judgment. " Plucker v. United Fire & Casualy Co., No. CIV. 12-4075, 20 1 5 WL 5697334, at *6 (D.S.D. Sept. 28, 2015) (referencing Gilmour v. Gates, McDonald & Co., 382 F.3d 1 312, 1 315 (11th Cir. 2004)). See also McFarlane-Hammond v. Premium Capital Fundi, LLC, No. 1 1 -cv-01927, 2012 WL 6652920, at *7 (D. Minn. Dec. 2 1 , 2012) ("Although courts allow a liberal pleading standard or civil complaints, this standard 'does not aford plaint_ifs with an opportunity to raise new claims at the summary judgment stage.' ") (citing Gilmour, 382 F.3d at 1 3 1 4- 1 5); Wahi v. Charleston Area Med. Ctr., Inc., 562 F.3d 599, 617 (4th Cir. 2009) ("We have previously held, along with the Fifth, Sixth, Seventh, and Eleventh Circuits, that a plaintif may not raise new claims after discovery has begun without amending his complaint.") (collecting cases). Plaintifs' complaint includes a claim or inadequate training and supervision of DSS personnel allegedly occurring beore the completion of the 48-hour hearing. (Docket 1 i! 113- 1 20). Count III also includes allegations DSS personnel are inadequately trained to work with Native American amilies after completion of their 48-hour hearing. Id. i! 1 2 1 -129. Plaintifs'summary judgment motions detail alleged ailures to promulgate supervision policies and deadlines to assure DSS compliance with ICWA requirements. Though plaintifs assert their DSS inadequate staing evidence 6 is not a ree-standing claim, the court's order on summary judgment could not avoid analysis of this issue despite plaintifs' ailure to plead it in the complaint. When additional claims develop through the discovey process, those previously unknown claims must be asserted in an amended complaint. United States v. Vorachek, 563 F.2d 884, 886 (8th Cir. 1 977) (internal citation omitted); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 15 (a) and (d). Applying the Rule 8 standard, plaintifs' complaint does not give the DSS Defendants air notice of the new and expanded bases of plaintifs' inadequate training and supervision claim after 48-hour hearings are concluded or or plaintifs' ailure to end placement claim. Hammond, supra. Plucker, supra; and McFarlane Those new claims may only be asserted if plaintifs amend their complaint under Fed. R. Civ. P. 15. The present motions or summary judgment are denied without prejudice. ORDER Based on the above analysis, it is ORDERED that the DSS Defendants' objection (Docket 313) is granted. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintifs' motions or summary judgment (Dockets 290 & 295) are denied without prejudice. Dated September 29, 2017. 7
]]>
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.
