Opinion
Case No. 00-CV-72032-DT
September 25, 2000
OPINION AND ORDER
On May 3, 2000, Plaintiffs filed this pro se action against Defendants, claiming that Defendants violated their constitutional right to due process. Defendants Cindy Lederman and the Farmington Hills Police Department have been dismissed by prior orders of this Court. Therefore, the only remaining Defendants in this case are Kimberly Shafor, Robert Boyak, David Bissel and Kristine Greggory. This matter is currently before the Court on Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs' Complaint pursuant to Rules 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules or Civil Procedure. For the reasons that follow, Defendants' motion to dismiss shall be granted.
Background
Plaintiff, Michelle Velez, is the mother of Plaintiffs Anastasia Velez, Edwin Velez, and Michael Velez ("the Velez Children"). Defendants are employees of the State of Florida's Department of Children and Families Services ("the Department"). From the limited materials before this Court, it appears that the Department filed a petition alleging that the Velez children were "dependent" under Florida law. (Pls.' Compl. Ex, 1). The petition alleged that Michelle Vein and her husband, Edwin Velez, had various problems that significantly interfered with their ability to care for the Velez children. ( Id.). It appears that following the petition, the Velez children were removed from their home by the Department. It also appears the Velez family received counseling and other services through the department. (Pls.' Compl, Ext 24)
Plaintiffs' complaint appears to allege a number of due process violations against the various Defendants in this case. The complaint primarily alleges due process violations, and other claims, against Judge Cindy Lederman, who has been dismissed from this case. However, Plaintiffs' complaint also appears to allege due process violations by (he remaining Defendants. Plaintiffs' complaint alleges that Defendants Boyak, Bissel and Greggory failed to notify Plaintiff Michelle Velez of proceedings involving her children. (Pls.' Compl. at 2). The complaint also alleges that Defendant Shafor filed unfounded charges against Plaintiff Michelle Velez. Plaintiffs further allege that those charges were brought and dismissed three times, in violation of the "two dismissal rule" (Pls.' Compl. at 3). Plaintiffs' complaint ultimately requests monetary damages from the State of Florida. (Pls.' Compl. at 5). Plaintiffs ask (or "the sum of $300,000,000,000" (sic) for damages care and treatment. ( Id.).
Defendants advance three arguments in support of their motion to dismiss Plaintiffs' claims. First, Defendants contend that Plaintiffs have failed to state a claim against Defendants Shafor, Boyak, Bissel and Greggory. Defendants claim they are simply unable to decipher the claims set forth by Plaintiffs' complaint, as it lacks any specific facts or causal connection regarding any alleged constitutional violations. Next, Defendants contend that any claims Plaintiffs have alleged against Defendants in their official capacity are barred by the Eleventh Amendment to the United States Constitution. Lastly, Defendants contend that they would be entitled to the defense of qualified immunity if they are being sued in their individual capacities. Plaintiffs' response to Defendants' motion to dismiss did not address any of Defendants' arguments or defenses.
Standard of Review
Defendants' motion to dismiss is brought under Rules 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Rule 12 (b)(1) provides for dismissal for lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter, while Rule 12(b)(6) addresses the failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. FED.R.Civ.P. 12 (b)(1) and 12(b)(6). A motion to dismiss may only be granted "if it appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim which would entitle him to relief." Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 45-46, 78 S.Ct. 99, 102, 2 L.Ed.2d 80 (1957). Moreover, this Court is aware that pro se drafted documents should be held to a "less stringent standard" than those drafted by attorneys. Hanes v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520, 92 S.Ct. 963, 30 L.Ed.2d 819 (1972).
Discussion
Plaintiffs' complaint does not specify whether they are suing Defendants in their official capacities or in their individual capacities. A complaint must indicate whether a plaintiff seeks to recover damages from defendants directly, or to hold the state responsible for the conduct of its employees. Nix v. Norman, 879 F.2d 429, 431 (8th Cir. 1989). Absent a specification of capacity, state officials will be construed to be sued in their official capacity. See Wells it Brown, 891 F.2d 591 (6th Cir. 1989). Although the Plaintiffs in this case do not specify the capacity in which they sue Defendants, their complaint plainly states: "I pray this court will stop this here and now and have the State of Florida pay for the damages they have caused my children which may never go away? (Pls.' Compl. at 5). As Plaintiffs' complaint does not request any monetary damages to be paid by the individual Defendants in this case. Accordingly, this Court construes Plaintiffs' complaint as suing Defendants in their official capacities.
Because Plaintiffs are suing Defendants in their official capacities, Plaintiff's complaint is barred by the Eleventh Amendment. The Eleventh Amendment bars suits against states for monetary damages. Edelman v. Jordan, 415 U.S. 651, 667-69, 94 S.Ct. 1347, 39 L.Ed.2d 662 (1974). In addition, a suit against a state official in an official capacity is no different than a suit against the state itself, Kentucky v. Graham, 473 U.S. 159, 167, 105 S.Ct. 3099, 87 L.Ed.2d 114 (1985). Moreover, state agencies are entitled to assert the state's Eleventh Amendment immunity. Pennhurst State Sch. Hosp. v. Halderman, 465 U.S. 89, 100, 104 S.Ct. 900, 79 L.Ed.2d 67 (1984). In this case, Plaintiffs' sued Defendants, employees of a Florida State agency, requesting that the State of Florida pay for the damages allegedly caused by its employees. (Pls.' Compl. at 5). As Plaintiffs are suing Defendants in their official capacity and seeking monetary damages to be paid by the State of Florida, Plaintiffs' complaint is barred by the Eleventh Amendment and must be dismissed.
Conclusion
For the reasons set forth above,
IT IS ORDERED, that the motion to dismiss filed by Defendants Shafor, Boyak, Bissel, and
Gregory is GRANTED and Plaintiff's complaint as to these Defendants is DISMISSED.
A Judgment consistent with this Opinion shall issue forthwith.