Opinion
No. 00-1029-WEB
April 25, 2001.
Order
This matter is before the court on plaintiff's motion for reconsideration. At issue is the court's prior ruling that plaintiff's complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted under § 1983 or that any such claim is barred by the defendants' immunity. Plaintiff contends the complaint properly alleged that the defendants violated his fundamental constitutional right to the care, custody and control of his minor son, and that it thus stated a claim for relief under § 1983. Alternatively, he contends he should be permitted to amend the complaint to allege that the deprivation of this right was "without due process."
The amendment proposed by plaintiff would not overcome the shortcomings which the court identified in its previous order, including the absence of any allegation that the defendants lacked any reasonable basis for their suspicions of abuse, and the failure to allege facts showing that the governmental actors' conduct was outside the scope of their immunity. The court is mindful of the fact that plaintiff in acting pro se in this matter, although it must point out that his motion to reconsider, like all of his pleadings in this case, is well-written and reflects a significant knowledge of the law. But nothing in plaintiff's motion changes the court's conclusion that the § 1983 claim lacks a basis in law and that any adjudication of plaintiff's state law claims should take place in a state forum.
Accordingly, plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration (Doc. 69) is hereby DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED