Free USCA Mandate - District Court of Connecticut - Connecticut

I 1—_1“"1`"` 1
I Case 3:03-cv-00109-AVC Document 153 Fnled 11/10/2005 Page 1 0f 4
I L IJ 1
* -. 1 ·-’*‘ . 1 I 1
E — 1I 1 1 1_ 1 *~·==·1I· qq 109
UNITED STATES COURT IOF APPEALS J € I I
Fox wm: srcown C‘ITRCUI1T ZUUS NUV IJ ID rgfg 1 I
I 1 1
I SUMMARY ;C1[j 11I?URT 1
I eI]`j1
1 THIS SIMMART ORDER WILL NOT BE PUBLISHED IN THE FEDERAL REPORTER 1
1 9 1a_1 11 MAY NOT 1EE11CIT·EDAASIIP-RE.CEDE1TTIAL1AUTHORITY11TO1 THIS OH OTHER-1
I COURT. BUT MAY BF. CALLED 1‘I‘O1 THE ATTENTION.1IOF THIS 1OR ANY OTHER
1 COURT IN A SUBSEQUENT STAGE OF THIS CASE. IN A RELATED CASE. 1OR1IN I
ANY CASE FOR PURPOSES OF C1OI.I..ATERQAL ESTOPPEL OR RES JUZDICATA.
1 _ A 1 - I
1 I I I I I
1 1 1 At a stated term of the Un1ted1-Stratos Court of Appeals for the 1
I 1I Second Circuit. héld at I the IIThurg0od1 Marshall United States
Co-urthouse. Foley Square. in--the City of New York. on Ch€122”° day I
1 of June. two thou1 $.nd and f1$;ve1. 1 I
11111I PRESENT. . I
. Hon. John. M. Walker. JI'. . ig) 1
I gh;ef Iifggge. 1 1 . .g\1?‘f1 QIUEU 1 <‘.§é” I
Hon. Fzlerra Lev-al. . ,_<·:1? 5 cw
1 11 III Hon. Dermslg Jaco.bs.I I 1 - IIIIII 227.130 $,1 I
1 - .111111 C; g.3;g.'t J1gg1e=¤.1 1 11 1 1 1 ¢· 1
11 1 - 11 - u 1111°1°’1"51§._¤F.%£i»‘?$%\§‘4`
I I .1 I -I .......-........----»-»-.---- 1 »~-- 1-x `-‘31`?`f30NQC1\1`J` 1 I
1 T-Home ¤u·1·;<:cmv1c:z. Aixam puwrczcmwxcjz. ;
- 11 3 lg:i.nt;£fg—Apga111g_gt·§.I 1 1
I I 11 DOCKET NO.: 04-1.881-CV
I ,.. V. .... _ 1 I I I I 1 I I
1 11 111` I1 1 EILEEN HYJEK. -I/0.1 1 1 1 I1 11 - 1
— 1 . 1 _ 1
RAINBOW IN A TEAR WORKSHOPS. L1'..C.1ét. al. . 1
I _1 · _
1Ij1 __________ _____ __ ____ I __.. ... ....... I .... ...X 1 I I I I 1.
1 _ 1 APFPEARING FORIA1?PELL3Ii1T= 1 1I1. ;--`ITKOMJW DtjYI1$IEWICz·1 PEL? @2*1 1
.1; . 1 ___11 1 I 1 1 Bristol. 11CT
1 11 1_ APPEARING FOR APPELLEES STATE OF E. KINTDALL. Assistant
1 CONNECTICUT DEPARTMENT OF _ Attorney.-Genortal (Richard
CHILDREN AND ·FAMII.IES. ATTORNEY .B1·¤.mo1*;tha1.1 Attorney General
·1’1 -11 GENERAL, STATE GF-1}G!O1§NECTICUT.1 1f¤r1t1ho State of Connecticut. I
1 AND NAMED STATE-·EMPLOYEES;I1 . .1 1cm the. brief) . Hartford. CT I - 1
"" 1-~——~—~—-L—A - .-- . I- I _ __ I ___1-___ _ __ I QM. 1 I - 3- -.1 1 _ 1

1
1 . ._ Case 3:03-cv-00109-AVC Document 153 Filed 11/10/2005 Page 2 of 4
1 APPEARING_FOR APPELLEES BRISTOL ALExANDRIA.L_ VOCCIOI Howd &
1 BOARD OF EDUCATION AND ANNE Ludorf (Thomas R. Gerarde, on
1 JELLISON the brief), Hartford, CT
1 _ APPEARING FOR APPELLEES BONNIE JAMES H. LEE. Law Office of 1
·. MASKERY AND RAINBOW IN A TEAR James H. Lee. Fairfield. CT
WORKSHOPS. LLC·1 ‘ _ - 1
APQEARING FOR APPELLEES DELBERT BARBARA A. FREDERICK. Updike. 1
HODDER, MD. CAROLYN CLARK, M , Kelly, Spellacy. P.C..
1 ;j and PEDIATRIC ASSOCIATES, INC. Hartford. CT
1 I 1
T Appeal from the United States District Court of Connecticut 1
* p(Alfred V. Covello,.Qis;rigt Judge), ,..` _ * _
UPON DUE CONSIDERATION. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED. ADJUDGED AND 1
X DECREED that the judgment of said·district court be and it hereby A T
I‘ is AFFIRMED. ·
‘ Plaintiffs-appellants Aimee and Thomas Dutkiewicz appeal from
A the-judgment of the district court dismissing, pursuant to Federal -
T Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6}, plaintiffs' amended complaint ;
- ; filed-against the Connecticut Department of Children and Families ` j
S (“DCF”}. several DCF employees.—the Connecticut Attorney General
1 (“AG”), several assistant attorneys general, and certain educators,
doctors, and counselors that were involved in a neglect complaint
T j against the Dutkiewiczes that was filed with DCF, DCF's
‘ investigation of that complaint, or a neglect petition filed
e against the Dutkiewiczes by DCF and the AG in state court that was
. subsequently· withdrawn. In _their¤,c0mplaint, the Dutkiewiczes . g
.j alleged claims_ under' the _RaCketeer Influenced) and Corrupt, I
._ Organizations Act·(tRICO”),»18fU.S.C. §§`1961—1968, 18 U.S C. ss ` ‘i
. 241 and 242, the Child Abuse Prevention & Treatment & Adoption
Reform Act (“CAPTA”), the Family Education Rights and Privacy Act f
‘ (“FERPA"), 20 U.S.C. § l232g,i_for violation. of FERPA’s non-
‘{ disclosure requirements, and under 42 U,S.C. §§ 1983 and 1985 for ;
.. violations of their rights under the·First, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, 5
. . Ninth, Eleventh, and Fourteenth Amendments. We assume familiarity 1
, with the facts and with the issues raised on appeal.
.We review the dismissal of a claim under Rule 12(b)(6) ge- 1
“ ngyg. §ge·Qggpe; v..Parsky,Z140 F.3d‘433, 440 (2d Cir. 1998). In
. doing-so, we “tak[e] all factual allegations as true and constru[e] 1
‘ TV all reasonable inferences in the plaintiff[s'} favor." Lee y,
? gangerg Trgst,.165 F.3d 540, 543 (2d Cir} 1999). Moreover, when,
Y- as here, appellants are proceeding Q;Q.§g, we construe their .
-¥~ appellate briefs- and other· pleadings .1ihera11y and read such T _
` 1 submissions to raise the strongest arguments that they suggest.) ` · ; 1
gee ggrgos v. hopgins, 14 F;3d 787, 790 (2d Cir. 1994)} The rule. · 2
an i" . 2 - 1
._ .= --.. : ·=.' ¤;.1.-.Q..~·a,:·>;·. -... . -_-~ .- -·... .- --.- · T. · - · . A . » .· T. e.._ -.;:‘ -.--i). -. Y .e.‘.· ST.; )·.) —T)» t>--.·Q-;.?‘.‘ 1
.___ ‘._,~·E_=-;--;--i=_:s&c..-$.:.·..;.=~`:;_:`.‘ ‘- - · ‘T · · · " ·` `· ·**"`··*`·‘*‘“"*#*~ ·~*·- !
_____ __i_ ________________\

I ;....
I if Case 3:03-cv-00109-AVC D0cument153 FiIed11/10/2005 Page30f4
3 K 0 •
` _ .
l favoring liberal construction of prg gg submissions is especially _
I applicable to civil rights claims.. gee Weigel v, Bd. of Ed., 287 I
{ , F.3d 138, 146 (2d Cir. 2002). We will not affirm a district {
I? court’s dismissal unless it appears beyond doubt that a plaintiff I
g can present no set of supporting facts that would entitle him to · }
I ` relief. Sykes v. James, 13 F.3d 515, 519 (2d Cir. 1993).
Having thoroughly considered appel1ants’ arguments and the I
record below, we find no error in the district court's orders
dismissing appellants’ claims. Specifically, we conclude that; (
(1) the Dutkiewiczes have affirmatively waived their FERPA claim, F
as they contend in their appellate brief that they are not stating _
claims under FERPA, but rather are using the statute as “a point of ?
law"; (2) even if not waived, there is no private right of action
under FERPA and its non—disclosure requirements may not be enforced I
pursuant to § 1983, see Ggngaga Qniv. v. Doe, 536 U.S. 273, 288 Q
(2002); and (3) appe1lants' RICO claims are deemed waived because
they have not been pursued on appeal, egg Logagco v, Cigy of 1
Middletown, 71 F.3d 88, 92-93 (2d Cir. 1995). i
With respect to plaintiffs' § 1983 claims for constitutional ,
violations, we conclude that; (4) DCF and the AG's office are not I
“persons” subject to suit under § 1983, seg Will v. Mich. Dep't of “
ggatg Police, 491 U.S. 58 (1989); (5) the Dutkiewiczes failed to
sufficiently allege any constitutional violation or injury with I
respect to their claims against the named assistant attorneys l
general and DCF employees, who, in any event, were entitled to ;
either qualified or absolute immunity with respect to their roles Q
in the investigation and prosecution of child neglect charges; (6) I
plaintiffs failed to allege the deprivation of any property or E
liberty interest, seg Hynes v. Sggillgce, 143 F.3d 653, 658 (2d I
Cir. 1998) (per curiam), or that, in addition to damage to their
reputations, the Dutkiewiczes have suffered a state—imposed burden p
or alteration of their status or rights as a result of the
challenged proceedings as required to pursue their due process
claims, egg Pagl v. Davis, 424 U.S. 693 (1976); (7) plaintiffs
failed to allege that their speech was chilled or that they have
been deprived of any governmental benefit,or privilege as required i
to pursue their First Amendment retaliation claim, gee Qurly_gL
Village gf Suffgrn, 268 F.3d 65, 73 (2d Cir. 2001); Qgnnell_yL
gignoragci, 153 F.3d 74, 79 (2d Cir. 1998); J8) plaintiffs have no
claim under the Sixth Amendment, which applies only to criminal I
defendants; (9) plaintiffs’ claims against Hodder, Clark, Pediatric 1
Associates, and Maskery fail because none of these defendants is a Q
“state actor" and, further, negligence claims are not cognizable 5
under § 1983, seg Rgndell—§aker v, Kohn, 457 U.S. 830, 838 (1982); i
(10) the Dutkiewiczes fail' to offer any support for their i
allegation that the state's purpose in investigating and W
3
I
I
I

i " 4 f4
i I d " t Case 3:03-cv-00109$VC Document 153 Fnled 11%/2005 Page 0
l prosecuting the neglect claim was to suppress their Wiccan beliefs
I or conduct, in violation of the Free Exercise Clause; and (12)
§ plaintiffs have failed to allege that student educational records
i are subsumed within a federally protected privacy right.
y
i Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is hereby
I AFFIRMED,
i FOR THE COURT: `
i Roseenn =. MacKechnie, Clerk 1
i Lucil e Carr, Deputy Clerk
g A TRUE cow i
Roseann B. % nie, CLERK .
by i n l _ i i i
nT&t‘¤*u*‘Y <:1.1@:RK ~
y , l i
1 ` ·¥ i !
I
I
i
.___ _ _ ‘ _
eoi‘ l 4