Free Order on Motion to Dismiss - District Court of Connecticut - Connecticut

fr·—1 ”"—`|
N . Cage 3:03-cv-00109=AVC Document 145 Fnled 03*/08/ 2004 Page 1 0f 1
N UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 `
DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT A i
= ‘. » ... '
\ B:03cv109 (AVC). March 8, 2004. This is an act'bn for equitable ;
g relief alleging violations of the 1“, 4m, 5m 6m,,9“, 11m, and 1
l4w Amendments to the United States Constitution E It is brought -
i pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The plaintiffs al ege that the l
g Connecticut Department of Children & Families (" CF"), the Office l
W of the Attorney General, and 15 named state empl yees violated i
_ their Constitutional rights when DCF, in April o ’2002, \
F investigated a complaint of child neglect, subst ntiated the
complaint, and then filed a petition alleging neglect with the i
i Connecticut juvenile court. In December of 2002, the state of i
1 Connecticut withdrew the petition alleging negle t. The i
plaintiffs contend that the initial neglect complaint was a lie I
and that DCF should have known it was false beca se the reporter, l
Eonnie Maskery, was not a properly licensed ther gist. `
The plaintiffs also contend that DCF failed to giie Miranda — ,
type warnings during the initial investigation, t_at
pediatricians and a public school gave DCF improper and
inaccurate information, and that the neglect petition and social
study filed with the Connecticut juvenile court s inaccurate J
and false. The plaintiffs also contend that the ieglect
complaint should not have been substantiated, and that the \
administrative appeal process has been slow in de ling with their ¤
appeal of the substantiation decision. The plain iffs seek to i
hold DCF and its commissioner, the office of the 'ttorney 1
General, several high ranking DCF officials, and =wo assistant i
attorneys general liable for their alleged failur to supervise _
investigators and other subordinates, and for their alleged Q
unconstitutional conduct and policies. Further, ”he plaintiffs
allege that the confidentiality provisions of Con . Gen. Stat. § I
17a—28 are unconstitutional as they violate the S“xth Amendment ,
to the United States Constitution. The state of onnecticut and
each official/employee of the state named as a degendant herein i
now moves to dismiss the action. Having reviewed the parties' j
submissions, the court first concludes that, beca se DCF and the Q
office of the Attorney General are state agencies§ dismissal is 5
nequired as state agencies are not persons for pu poses of suit
under § 1983. Will v. Mich. De 't of State Polic A 491 U.S. 58
{1989). Dismissal is also required with respect b each
defendant named in his/her official capacity beca be, while a
plaintiff may bring an action for prospective equ table»re£§ef to E
redress alleged violations of the Constitution by,state of cial ? i
acting in their official capacities, the amended Ompldlnti ailsé i
to sufficiently allege any Constitutional violati n or injury. §§:
Because no Constitutional violation is stated,·th ¤action as aBso
dismissed with respect to the defendants named in their¢ -U €?W
individual capacities. Finally, to the extent th amended @:3
complaint purports to allege a civil RICO cause o factipnfnho 5
such action is stated as a matter of law. The mo ionsgtojgismiss i
(document nos. 82 and 110) are therefore GRANTED n their Q
entirety. _,_ _ " 1
1 SO ORDERED. i‘ . __ ._ _ j`____ I-- ;
` I. _ " . ’: ""'?..·. j 1}}
` lv - I `
Alfred V. Covello, U.S.D.J.
_.,, , ...-.. . ie... -p— ii-- ·»·e·1a5&·4 ·-··-* tr‘- Z #-:-···t = 11=i és-: =‘= ’j` ” ''livp
1 __ . ‘ * 2
._n_llli.ilIIIjiIIIIDI;illi_ananinaaanna;n;;;;22ILLCELLQQQQlZiiifjii§§§§
MXin;gxh;,,;g,;F_r{,_g%»;,,?g,,»p;¥u;;.»,>—»e,»;·gs;g~,·g·;,y&;;»i;·s_··iq·,;;;:q3g{’;·;i;-;·—*=~»;=~g~}-~·{=»$=g>>·¤~g·¤§§~*¤#¢i“·¢:i<4’*3‘f<$‘t>i‘S·‘·*51;*1a?¢;t.;i;:=x»:i.i.2,er.,,,..iif;,__-_Ir Ir - _' I r· V - A , , _ H
gggg;;as$jjIjgi:2::2IIIZ33**CTTTEZ;;QE;QggQ %%§§g;;;;E;¥