Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

D.V. v. Westmoreland County Children's Bureau

March 3, 2008

D.V. PLAINTIFF,
v.
WESTMORELAND COUNTY CHILDREN'S BUREAU; MARILYN MCSPARRIN, DIRECTOR OF THE WESTMORELAND COUNTY CHILDREN'S BUREAU; SHANNON HAYWORD; MICHELLE BRANT; FRANK MARSILY; DAWN SMITLEY; ROCHELLE RIBBLET; WILLIAM SAWDY; MELINDA WALKER; AND CAROL PATTERSON, DEFENDANTS.



The opinion of the court was delivered by: Nora Barry Fischer United States District Judge

The Honorable Nora Barry Fischer

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Defendant Carol Patterson (hereinafter "Patterson") has moved to dismiss Plaintiff D.V.'s suit, stating that the Amended Complaint sets forth a professional liability claim for which Plaintiff has failed to file a certificate of merit as required by Pa.R.C.P. 1042.3.*fn1 Patterson urges the Court to find that the Plaintiff's claims against her arose out of her actions as a licensed psychologist. (Docket No. 18 at pp. 7-8). As explained below, however, a failure to file such a certificate in this case is not fatal to Plaintiff's claims because the complaint is based on alleged violations of the First and the Fourteenth Amendment rights, which are actionable under federal law pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (Docket. No. 16 at pp. 65-90).

Factual Summary

Plaintiff's Amended Complaint alleges that Defendant Westmoreland County Children's Bureau and the individually named employees of that Agency abused the authority conferred on them by their official status in enforcing state child welfare laws. Further, he alleges that the Defendants, acting under color of state law, jointly and individually deprived D.V. of his rights as guaranteed to him by the First and the Fourteenth Amendments. Patterson is a licensed psychologist and frequent contractor with the Westmoreland County Children's Bureau. Patterson produced, at the behest of the County Defendants, a report which allegedly resulted in one of the instances in which D.V.'s custodial relationship with his children was suspended. (Docket No.16 at pp. 16-18). It is Patterson's Motion to Dismiss that is addressed here.

Standard

Under Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, --- U.S.---, 127 S.Ct. 1955 (2007), a claim must be dismissed pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) if the Plaintiff fails to allege "enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face." Twombly, 127 S.Ct. at 1963 (abrogating "no set of facts" language found in Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 45-46 (1957)).*fn2

See Phillips v. Count of Allegheny, --- F.3d ----, 2008 WL 305025, at *6 (3d Cir. 2008) (declining to read Twombly "so narrowly as to limit its holding on plausibility to the antitrust context" and noting that plausibility is related to the requirement of a Rule 8 "showing").

"Factual allegations must be enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative level." Twombly, 127 S.Ct. at 1965. As still required post-Twombly, the Court accepts all well-pled material allegations in Plaintiff's Complaint as true and draws all reasonable inferences therefrom in his favor. Id. at 1964-65 & 1969 n.8. Finally, on a motion to dismiss, a court may consider some evidence beyond a complaint (and the attached exhibits) "including public records..., documents essential to plaintiff's claim which are attached to defendant's motion, and items appearing in the record of the case." Core Const. & Remediation, Inc. v. Village of Spring Valley, NY, Civil Action No. 06-CV-1346, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 73069, 2007 WL 2844870, at *2 (E.D. Pa. Sept. 27, 2007) (citing Oshiver v. Levin, 38 F.3d 1380, 1380 n.1 and n.2 (3d Cir. 1995)) (internal citation omitted).

Analysis

Patterson correctly cites case law regarding the interpretation of Rule 1042.3 in diversity medical malpractice actions. Indeed, the application of Pa.R.C.P. 1042.3 was justified in the cited diversity actions because, in those cases, it was outcome determinative and, thus, substantive under Erie for choice of law analysis purposes. Erie R.R. v. Tompkins, 304 U.S. 64, 78 (1938); Velazquez v. UPMC Bedford Memorial Hosp. 338 F.Supp.2d 609, 613 (W.D.Pa. 2004); Ditch v.Waynesburg Hospital, 917 A.2d 317 (Pa. Super. 2007). However, here the jurisdiction of this Court arises under 28 U.S.C.A. § 1331, the general federal question statute, obviating the need to undertake the Erie choice of law analysis and requiring the application of federal procedural and substantive law.

Case law makes it clear that the standards for determining a violation of the United States Constitution differ from those for determining whether a defendant has committed a tort actionable under state law. See Daniels v. Williams, 474 U.S. 327, 328 (1986);*fn3 see also Baker v. McCollan, 443 U.S. 137, 146 (1979).*fn4 Thus, it makes no difference how Defendant Patterson characterizes the claims: they remain federal claims, actionable on federal grounds.

This line of reasoning is further supported by noting that a civil rights statute providing liability for deprivation of rights under color of law is not itself a source of substantive rights, but a method for vindicating federal rights elsewhere conferred by the Constitution or federal statutes. Maher v. Gagne, 448 U.S. 122, 129 n. 11 (1980). Thus, whenever a plaintiff files a §1983 claim, the court must look to the underlying substantive right that was allegedly violated to determine whether that right was conferred by federal law. Id. Section 1983 offers no remedy for abuses that do not violate federal law. Collins v. City of Harker Heights, 503 U.S. 115, 119 (1992). In this § 1983 case, the alleged violations concern Plaintiff's First and Fourteenth Amendment rights under the United States Constitution.

Equally unavailing is the preemption argument on D.V.'s part. To this end, D.V. cites the Supreme Court decision in Felder v. Casey, 487 U.S. 131 (1988), arguing ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.