Valdez v. Roybal
2016 WL 3124634, 186 F. Supp. 3d 1197, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 62872 (2016)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
State social workers are entitled to qualified immunity from § 1983 liability for actions taken outside of formal state custody procedures, even if those actions created a 'functional custody' relationship that plausibly violated a child's constitutional rights, because the law was not clearly established that such informal actions could give rise to these specific constitutional duties.
Facts:
- Synthia Varela, a mother with a history of drug use and incarceration, gave birth to Omaree Varela (O. Varela).
- The New Mexico Children, Youth, and Families Department (CYFD) investigated multiple allegations of physical abuse and neglect against Synthia Varela concerning O. Varela and his sister, N.V., over several years.
- In 2009, Synthia Varela allowed a family friend, Essie Sotelo, to care for the children, but later requested their return. Sotelo expressed fear for the children's safety to CYFD social worker Joe Roybal.
- Roybal issued a memo on official CYFD letterhead stating that the children should remain in Sotelo's care pending an investigation and that Synthia Varela should not take custody of them.
- For approximately 18 months, Sotelo cared for the children, at times moving to Arizona, and used the CYFD memo to enroll them in school, obtain medical care, and secure social security benefits.
- In March 2011, CYFD social worker Bennie Placencio threatened Sotelo with criminal prosecution for interstate kidnapping if she did not immediately return the children to New Mexico.
- Upon their return, Placencio immediately handed O. Varela and N.V. over to Synthia Varela and her husband, Steve Casaus, who had a criminal record, without conducting any investigation into their living conditions or fitness.
- On December 27, 2013, nine-year-old O. Varela was found dead from blunt force trauma; Synthia Varela later confessed to kicking him to death.
Procedural Posture:
- The Plaintiffs, representing the estate of Omaree Varela and his sister N.V., filed a complaint for civil rights violations against Defendants Bennie Placencio, Joe Roybal, and the New Mexico Children, Youth, and Families Department (CYFD).
- The case is before the United States District Court for the District of New Mexico.
- Defendants CYFD and Placencio filed a Motion to Dismiss for failure to state a claim.
- Defendant Roybal filed a separate Motion to Dismiss for failure to state a claim.
- The court consolidated the responses to the motions and held a hearing.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Are state social workers entitled to qualified immunity for constitutional claims arising from their placement of children outside of formal state procedures, where their actions allegedly created a special relationship, enhanced danger, and denied court access?
Opinions:
Majority - James O. Browning
Yes. State social workers are entitled to qualified immunity because, although their actions plausibly gave rise to constitutional violations, the specific rights at issue were not clearly established in the context of informal, 'functional' state custody. The complaint plausibly alleges that the defendants created a special relationship with the children through 'functional custody' by exercising de facto control over their placement via the official memo and subsequent threats, even without a formal court order. The complaint also plausibly alleges the defendants abdicated their professional judgment and denied the children their right of access to the courts by circumventing the required procedures of the New Mexico Children's Code. However, the complaint fails to state a 'danger-creation' claim because the social workers' conduct, while perhaps negligent, does not rise to the level of 'shocking the conscience.' Ultimately, because no Supreme Court or Tenth Circuit precedent had clearly established that 'functional custody' created these specific due process and court-access duties, a reasonable official would not have known their conduct was unconstitutional, thus entitling them to qualified immunity on all federal claims.
Analysis:
This decision illustrates the formidable nature of the qualified immunity defense, particularly in cases with novel factual patterns. The court's development of the 'functional custody' doctrine is a significant expansion of the special relationship theory, extending potential state liability beyond formal, court-ordered custody. However, by granting immunity because this very expansion meant the law was not previously 'clearly established,' the ruling insulates the officials from liability while simultaneously putting future officials on notice. This case will likely be cited for the proposition that informal state actions creating de facto control over a child can trigger constitutional duties, making it harder for officials to claim qualified immunity for similar conduct in the future.
Unlock the full brief for Valdez v. Roybal