“As a general cule... before parents may be deprived of the care, custody or management of their chtidren without their consent, due process—ordinarily a court proceeding resulting in an order permitting removal—must be accorded to them,”
How later courts described this case
- “As a general cule... before parents may be deprived of the care, custody or management of their chtidren without their consent, due process—ordinarily a court proceeding resulting in an order permitting removal—must be accorded to them,”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
uUspcSDNyY = □□□□□□□□□
DOCUMENT .
ELECTRONICALLY FILED ||
GATED STATES DISTRICT COURT poc ie □ Al AP
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK en
eee eee eee ne eee eee □□□ eee DATE FILED:
WANDA MUNOZ, individually and as next friend ——————
to minor child C.B.,
Piamiati,
-against- L?-ov-9583 (LAK)
THE CITY GF NEW YORK, etal... -
Defendants.
eee ee ee eee ee eee ee KK
MEMORANDIIM AND ORDER
LEWIS A. KAPLAN, District Judge.
As Magistrate Judge Freeman explained at the beginning of her lengthy and thorough
Report and Recommendation (the “R&R”, this is a
civil-rights action, plaintiff Wanda Munoz (“Munoz”), individually and on behalf of
her minor son, plaintiff C.B. (“C.B.”), has brought claims under 42 U.S.C, § 1983
against defendants the City of New York (the “City”), two City Commissioners (the
New York City Fire Department Commissioner and the New York Police Department
Commissioner} Uhe “Commissioner Defendants’), seven Mow ‘York Poles
Department (“NYPD”) officers and one NYPD lieutenant (the “Officer Defendants”),
and two emergency medical technicians (“EMTs”) (the “EMT Defendants”) (all,
collectively, Defendants”), arising from an incident in which C.B., who is severely
autistic, was restrained and forcibly taken to a hospital by the Officer Defendants and
EMT Deitendanes, and in whieh Munoz was arrested for allegedly interfering in that
process. Dkt. 143 at 1.
Defendants moved for summary judgment dismissing the second amended complaint in all respects.
The R&R recommends that the motion “be granted on all of Plaintiffs’ claims, with the exception of
Munoz’s 14th Amendment procedural due-process claim against the Officer Defendants and the EMT
Defendants, alleging that she was wrongfully deprived of her liberty interest in making medical
decisions on behaif of her mmor cluid, C.B.” id at 73.
Plaintiff objects solely to the recommended dismissal of her federal and state claims
for false arrest. She argues that there was a genuine issue of material fact as to whether there was
arguable probable cause resulting in qualilied immunity for those of the Officer Defendants mvoived
in her arrest.
Defendants object to so much of the R&R as recommended denial of the motion to
dismiss the Fourteenth Amendment claim relating to the hospitalization of C.B. against Munoz*s
wishes. They contend that that claim should be dismissed because the hospitalization was justified
by objectively reasonable evidence that harm to C.B. was imminent,
Mdunoz’s individuai Faise-Arresi Ciaim
Munoz was atrested for obstruction of governmental administration in that she linked
her arm in C.B.’s arm and allegedly sought to pull him out of the ambulance in which he was to be
taken to Jacobi Hospital. [t is undisputed that Munoz linked arms with C.B. and that C.B. thereupon
stepped down and away from the ambulance into which he had been entering. There is a conflict in
the testimony of witnesses as to whether Munoz was trying to help C.B. enter the ambulance or trying
{0 pull him out. In ihe event the iatier is the case, the Oilicer Defendants who, on the view of the
evidence most favorable to the plaintiff, were involved in the arrest had arguable probable cause for
the arrest and thus would have qualified immunity. On the former, arguable probable cause perhaps
would not exist. Accordingly, plaintifi’s objection to the recommended grant of summary judgment
dismissing this claim as against the relevant defendants is sustained.
The Procedural Due Process Claim
Munoz’s sixth cause of action, asserted under the Fourteenth Amendment, is “for
vioiation of Munoz’ s as a parent to direct and coniroi C.B."s medical care and for violation of
both Plaintiffs’ rights to association and family integrity.” Dkt. 131 at 31. The R&R correctly
construed this claim as containing both substantive and procedural components.
As to the claim itself, the R&R observes some disagreement about whether a
procedural right has been implicated. See R&R at 66-67 (addressing defendants’ arguiment that it
is material to the procedural due-process claim whether C.B. was being taken to hospital for medical
“assessment rather han medical “treatment”). Munoz’s liberty interests in family integrity and
association are sufficient to trigger a procedural right even if the “right to direct medical decisions”
is not directly in issue. See Tenenbaum v. Williams, 193 F.3d 581, 593 (2d Cir. 1999) (“As a general
cule... before parents may be deprived of the care, custody or management of their chtidren
without their consent, due process—ordinarily a court proceeding resulting in an order permitting
removal—must be accorded to them,”). The crux of Munoz’s procedural due-process claim against
these deiendants is whether she was entitied to a judicial proceeding or some other predeprivation
process before C.B. was removed from her care.
By the same token, the Officer and EMT defendants are entitled to qualified
immunity as a matter of law if “no reasonabie jury, looking at the evidence tn the light most
favorable to, and drawing all inferences most favorable to, the plaintiff[], could conclude that it was
objectively unreasonable” for the defendants to believe that their conduct would not violate a clearly
established federal right. Hurtime vy. Guilo, 346 F.3d 95, 102 (2d Cir. 2008) (quotations omitted).
As defendants argue, C.B. — for the second time in a relatively short period — had been extremely
we
violent at Lifespire. The Officer and EMT Defendants were justified in believing that C.B. would
become violent again if they released him to his mother or would resume his immediately prior
actions, many of which would have created a serious and imminent risk of harm to C.B, as weil as
to others, substantially as the defendants argue in their objection. On the view of the evidence most
favorable to the plaintiff, it was objectively reasonable for both the Officer and the EMT defendants
to believe they were confronted with “emergency circumstances” as delined in this Circuit and that
taking C.B. to Jacobi Hospital would not violate Munoz’s procedural rights. Tenenbaum, 193 F.3d
593-94.
Detendanis’ objection to the recommended denial of their motion io dismiss the
procedural due process claim is sustained,
Conciusion
The motion for summary judgment dismissing the second amended complaint (Dkt.
125) is granted in all respects as to all defendants except that it is denied insofar as it relates to
_ Munoz’s iederai and state faise-arresi claims in her individual capacity msotar as those claims are
made against defendants Henry, Wroten and Pierce.
SO ORDERED.
Dated: Wovemober 1, 2021 Lt
Lewis A.
United States District Judge