Caldwell et al v. Brown et al, No. 2:2009cv01332 - Document 111 (W.D. Wash. 2010)
Court Description: ORDER granting dfts' 19 Motion for Summary Judgment; Steve Felmley, Kenneth Brown and City of Bellingham are dismissed by Judge Robert S. Lasnik.(RS)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Caldwell et al v. Brown et al Doc. 111 1 2 3 4 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 _______________________________________ ) SHELLI CALDWELL, ) ) Plaintiff, ) v. ) ) KENNETH BROWN, et al., ) ) Defendants. ) _______________________________________) No. C09-1332RSL ORDER GRANTING CITY DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT 13 This matter comes before the Court on “Defendants’ Motion for Summary 14 15 Judgment.” Dkt. # 19. Defendants City of Bellingham, Kenneth Brown, and Steve Felmley 16 seek dismissal of all of the claims against them. Having reviewed the memoranda, declarations, 17 and exhibits submitted by the parties and having heard the arguments of counsel,1 the Court 18 finds as follows: 19 A. SUMMARY JUDGMENT STANDARD Summary judgment is appropriate when, viewing the facts in the light most 20 21 favorable to the nonmoving party, there is no genuine issue of material fact that would preclude 22 the entry of judgment as a matter of law. The party seeking summary dismissal of the case 23 “bears the initial responsibility of informing the district court of the basis for its motion” 24 25 26 1 The Court has not considered the first sentence of ¶ 39 of the Declaration of Shelli Caldwell (Dkt. # 41). Defendants’ other evidentiary objections are overruled. ORDER GRANTING CITY DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT Dockets.Justia.com 1 (Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323 (1986)) and identifying those portions of “the 2 pleadings, the discovery and disclosure materials on file, and any affidavits” that show the 3 absence of a genuine issue of material fact (Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c)). Once the moving party has 4 satisfied its burden, it is entitled to summary judgment if the non-moving party fails to designate 5 “specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial.” Celotex Corp., 477 U.S. at 324. 6 “The mere existence of a scintilla of evidence in support of the non-moving party’s position is 7 not sufficient,” and factual disputes whose resolution would not affect the outcome of the suit 8 are irrelevant to the consideration of a motion for summary judgment. Arpin v. Santa Clara 9 Valley Transp. Agency, 261 F.3d 912, 919 (9th Cir. 2001); Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 10 U.S. 242, 248 (1986). In other words, “summary judgment should be granted where the 11 nonmoving party fails to offer evidence from which a reasonable jury could return a verdict in its 12 favor.” Triton Energy Corp. v. Square D Co., 68 F.3d 1216, 1221 (9th Cir. 1995). 13 B. 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Plaintiffs have asserted claims under the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments of 14 15 the United States Constitution. Section 1983 of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 provides the means 16 to vindicate such claims. It creates a federal cause of action against any person who, acting 17 under color of state law, deprives another of a right, privilege, or immunity secured by the 18 Constitution or the laws of the United States. See, e.g., Kildare v. Saenz, 325 F.3d 1078, 1085 19 (9th Cir. 2003). The statute does not create substantive rights, but merely provides “a method 20 for vindicating federal rights elsewhere conferred.” Graham v. Conner, 490 U.S. 386, 393 21 (1989). 22 C. DUE PROCESS CLAIMS 23 24 1. Substantive Due Process -- Fundamental Liberty Interest The Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment protects certain individual 25 liberties from state interference, regardless of the process provided, unless the infringement is 26 narrowly tailored to achieve a compelling state interest. Reno v. Flores, 507 U.S. 292, 301-02 ORDER GRANTING CITY DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT -2- 1 (1993). Plaintiffs claim that their familial relationship is entitled to substantive protection under 2 the Due Process Clause. They have not identified, and the Court has not found, any case in 3 which a relationship of the type asserted here has garnered constitutional protection. 4 Freedom of personal choice in matters of family life is one of the liberties 5 protected by the Due Process Clause. Moore v. City of East Cleveland, 431 U.S. 494, 499 6 (1977). The mere fact of blood relation or even the close personal ties associated with extended 7 family do not, however, give rise to a constitutionally-protected interest. It is only when 8 extended family members have long-standing custodial relationships and constitute an “existing 9 family unit” that a liberty interest in familial association and integrity arises. Osborne v. County 10 of Riverside, 385 F. Supp.2d 1048, 1054 (C.D. Cal. 2005) (citing Moore, 431 U.S. at 499; 11 Miller v. California, 355 F.3d 1172, 1176-77 (9th Cir. 2004); Mullins v. State of Oregon, 57 12 F.3d 789, 794 (9th Cir. 1995). 13 The issue is not whether the grandparent-grandchild relationship is entitled to 14 respect and some level of recognition in our society. As the United States Supreme Court has 15 recognized, grandparents often play an “important role” in the lives of their grandchildren. 16 Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57, 64 (2000) (plurality opinion). President Barack Obama, who 17 was largely raised by his grandparents, refers to his grandmother as “the cornerstone of our 18 family.” Donna Butts, Editorial, Wash. Post, Jan. 16, 2010 at A 17. According to U.S. Census 19 data, 5.8 million American adults over the age of thirty lived with at least one grandchild in 20 2000. U.S. Dep’t of Commerce, U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2000 Brief C2KBR-31, 21 Grandparents Living with Grandchildren: 2000 1 (2003). By 2008, sixteen percent of 22 Americans were living in multigenerational families. Sam Roberts, Extended Family 23 Households Are on the Rise, N.Y. Times, Mar. 19, 2010 at A12. The question is not whether 24 grandparents are important members of the American family: they are. Nevertheless, the 25 normal grandparent-grandchild relationship has not garnered constitutional protection under the 26 Due Process Clause. See, e.g., Mullins, 57 F.3d at 796. The question, then, is whether the ORDER GRANTING CITY DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT -3- 1 relationship between Shelli Caldwell and ZA on August 6, 2008, exceeded the normal 2 grandparent-grandchild relationship by forming an existing family unit giving rise to a 3 protectable liberty interest in familial association and integrity. 4 Even when taken in the light most favorable to plaintiffs, no reasonable factfinder 5 could conclude that Ms. Caldwell had a long-standing custodial relationship with ZA or that, as 6 of August 6, 2008, they formed an “existing family unit.” Between 2001 and the day of 7 Cristina’s funeral, ZA lived with Ms. Caldwell for only one month. The evidence shows that 8 Ms. Caldwell stepped in periodically to provide shelter, material support, and comfort when 9 ZA’s mother was physically or financially incapable of taking care of him. There is no 10 indication, however, that Cristina abandoned her primary role as ZA’s custodian or encouraged a 11 parent-like relationship between ZA and his grandmother. In February 2008, Cristina 12 specifically declined to terminate her parental rights or turn custody of ZA over to Ms. Caldwell. 13 Even after Cristina died on July 29, 2008, ZA did not come live with Ms. Caldwell. He 14 remained in the house where he and his mother and her fiancée had lived to minimize the 15 disruption caused by his mother’s death. 16 “Only those aspects of liberty that we as a society traditionally have protected as 17 fundamental are included within the substantive protection of the Due Process Clause.” Mullins, 18 57 F.3d at 793. The Court must “exercise the utmost care whenever we are asked to break new 19 ground in this field, lest the liberty protected by the Due Process Clause be subtly transformed 20 into the policy preferences of [federal judges].” Brittain v. Hansen, 451 F.3d 982, 990 (9th Cir. 21 2006) (quoting Washington v. Glucksberg, 521 U.S. 702, 720 (1997)). The relationship between 22 Ms. Caldwell and ZA as of August 6, 2008, was that of extended family members, not parent 23 and child. Based on the evidence presented, no reasonable factfinder could conclude otherwise. 24 Because Ms. Caldwell and ZA did not enjoy a long-standing custodial relationship or live as an 25 existing family unit at any time relevant to this dispute, defendants did not interfere with a 26 fundamental liberty interest protected by the United States Constitution. ORDER GRANTING CITY DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT -4- 2. Substantive Due Process – “Shocks the Conscience” 1 Plaintiffs argue that defendants’ conduct at Cristina’s funeral shocks the 2 3 conscience and therefore constitutes a constitutionally prohibited abuse of government power. 4 Whatever one might think of the decision to execute the custody order at Cristina’s funeral or the 5 manner in which it was carried out, it is not enough for plaintiffs to allege conscience-shocking 6 conduct. “There is no general liberty interest in being free from capricious government action.” 7 Nunez v. City of Los Angeles, 147 F.3d 867, 873 (9th Cir. 1998). In order to establish a 8 constitutional violation under the substantive Due Process Clause, plaintiffs must show that the 9 governmental action deprived them of a protected liberty interest. Brittain, 451 F.3d at 991. For 10 the reasons discussed above, they have failed to do so. 3. Procedural Due Process 11 The Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment also provides a guarantee 12 13 that the government will utilize fair procedures in connection with any deprivation of life, 14 liberty, or property. Unlike the substantive component of the Due Process Clause, procedural 15 Due Process applies to more than just deprivations of fundamental rights: it protects all liberty 16 interests that are derived from state law or the Due Process Clause itself. Mullins, 57 F.3d at 17 795. 18 Under Washington law, a de facto parent stands in legal parity with biological and 19 adoptive parents. In re Parentage of L.B., 155 Wn.2d 679, 707-08 (2005). Thus, before the state 20 can deprive one of his or her role as de facto parent, it must provide adequate procedural 21 protections. No trier of fact could reasonably find that Ms. Caldwell was ZA’s de facto parent, 22 however, as that term is defined by Washington law. Id., at 708. ZA’s biological parent never 23 consented to or fostered a parent-child relationship between Ms. Caldwell and ZA, Ms. Caldwell 24 did not reside with ZA for any significant period of time after 2004, and Ms. Caldwell’s 25 participation in ZA’s upbringing was that of an interim, emergency care giver rather than a 26 parent. In the absence of a state law liberty interest in the continuation of their relationship, ORDER GRANTING CITY DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT -5- 1 plaintiffs’ procedural due process claim fails. 2 D. UNLAWFUL SEIZURE CLAIMS 3 4 1. ZA’s Right to be Free from Unlawful Seizure Plaintiffs allege that ZA was “seized without probable cause in violation of his 5 rights under the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution.” 6 Complaint at ¶ 5.3. The only argument offered in support of this claim is that ZA had a 7 constitutionally-protected right to continue his relationship with Ms. Caldwell without 8 government interference. Opposition at 18. As discussed above, the constitution affords no 9 protection for the extended family relationship shared by plaintiffs on August 6, 2008. 10 Defendants possessed a valid court order transferring custody of ZA from Ms. Caldwell to the 11 Allens. Plaintiffs have not shown that taking control of ZA in order to effectuate that transfer 12 was unlawful or otherwise violated ZA’s Fourth Amendment rights. 13 2. Ms. Caldwell’s Right to be Free of Unlawful Seizure Plaintiffs argue that, because Ms. Caldwell was ZA’s de facto parent under 14 15 Washington law, she could be guilty of custodial interference only if she attempted to conceal 16 ZA from “the other parent.” RCW 9A.40.060(2). This argument fails because, as of August 6, 17 2008, Ms. Caldwell was not ZA’s de facto parent. As a “relative” of ZA, she could be guilty of 18 custodial interference if she retained, detained, or concealed ZA from other persons, such as the 19 Allens, who possessed a lawful right to physical custody. RCW 9A.40.060(1); RCW 20 9A.40.070(1). 21 Plaintiffs also argue that probable cause was lacking because Ms. Caldwell did not 22 have sufficient knowledge of the temporary custody order to “intend” to deprive the Allens of 23 their lawful right to custody. State v. Boss, 167 Wn.2d 710, 719-20 (2009). The evidence does 24 not support plaintiffs’ argument. Probable cause exists if “at the moment of arrest the facts and 25 circumstances within the knowledge of the arresting officers and of which they had reasonably 26 trustworthy information were sufficient to warrant a prudent man in believing that the petitioner ORDER GRANTING CITY DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT -6- 1 had committed or was committing an offense.” United States v. Jensen, 425 F.3d 698, 704 (9th 2 Cir. 2005). Ms. Caldwell acknowledges that defendant Kingsley told her that she had a court 3 order transferring custody of ZA from Ms. Caldwell to the Allens. Complaint at ¶ 3.19. The 4 officers understood that Ms. Caldwell had been told that the court order granted custody to the 5 Allens. Decl. of Lt. Steve Felmley (Dkt. # 22) at ¶ 11; Decl. of Sgt. Kenneth Brown (Dkt. # 26) 6 at ¶ 13. Although there is divergent testimony regarding whether Ms. Caldwell was offered a 7 copy of the actual custody order, it is clear that she was aware of the order and its essential 8 terms. Having learned why defendant Kingsley and the officers were present at the funeral, Ms. 9 Caldwell nevertheless informed the officers that she intended to take ZA home with her. In 10 these circumstances, defendants had probable cause to believe that Ms. Caldwell was violating 11 RCW 9A.40.070.2 12 E. QUALIFIED IMMUNITY When a defendant claims qualified immunity from civil damages, plaintiff is 13 14 required to show that the official has violated “clearly established statutory or constitutional 15 rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 16 818 (1982). In the context of a motion for summary judgment, defendants bear the burden of 17 showing that “a reasonable officer could have believed, in light of the settled law, that he was 18 not violating a constitutional or statutory right.” Gasho v. United States, 39 F.3d 1420, 1438 19 (9th Cir. 1994). Such is the case here. As noted above, plaintiffs have not shown a violation of any constitutional right. 20 21 Even if such a violation existed, the rights that were allegedly violated were not clearly 22 23 24 25 26 2 Plaintiffs’ contention that the officers had no reason to believe that Ms. Caldwell intended to hold ZA “permanently or for a protracted period” does not advance their argument. One can be guilty of custodial interference in the second degree without regard to the intended length of the interference. Because the officers had probable cause to believe that Ms. Caldwell was committing custodial interference, the Court need not determine whether they also had cause to believe that she was guilty of obstructing a public officer. ORDER GRANTING CITY DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT -7- 1 established for purposes of the qualified immunity analysis. “The relevant, dispositive inquiry . . 2 . is whether it would be clear to a reasonable officer that his conduct was unlawful in the 3 situation he confronted.” Saucier v. Katz, 533 U.S. 194, 202 (2001).3 Given the substantial 4 number of cases in which extended familial relationships have been denied substantive due 5 process protection, the existence of a valid court order directing transfer of custody of ZA to the 6 Allens, and Ms. Caldwell’s statements and actions in defiance of that order, reasonable persons 7 in defendants’ positions could (and in fact would) have believed that their conduct in this case 8 was lawful. The defendant officers are, therefore, entitled to qualified immunity. 9 F. MUNICIPAL LIABILITY Absent a constitutional violation, there can be no municipal liability under § 1983. 10 11 Collins v. City of Harker Heights, 503 U.S. 115, 121-24 (1992). 12 For all of the foregoing reasons, plaintiffs’ claims against defendants Kenneth 13 14 Brown, Steve Felmley, and the City of Bellingham are DISMISSED. 15 Dated this 3rd day of September, 2010. 16 17 A 18 Robert S. Lasnik United States District Judge 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 3 In Saucier v. Katz, 533 U.S. 194, 201 (2001), the Supreme Court established a two-step process for considering claims of qualified immunity: the trial court first had to determine whether defendant’s conduct violated a constitutional right before determining whether the constitutional right was clearly established at the time of plaintiff’s injury. The sequential analysis was designed to prevent constitutional law from stagnating. In a recent opinion, the Supreme Court authorized district courts to exercise their sound discretion when deciding which of the two prongs of the qualified immunity analysis should be addressed first in light of the circumstances of a particular case. Pearson v. Callahan, __ U.S. __, 129 S.Ct. 808, 821-22 (2009). ORDER GRANTING CITY DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT -8-
]]>
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.
