The opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OfUdiSKeikes District Cot
Southern District of Texas
Sn ENTERED
Tiffany Denise Fox, § November 23, 2021
§ Nathan Ochsner, Clerk
Plaintiff, §
§
versus § Civil Action H-21-2146
§
Texas Department of Family and Protective §
Services, et al., §
§
Defendants. §
Opinion to Dismiss
I. Introduction.
Tiffany Fox is the mother of three. The State of Texas terminated her
parental rights to two of her three children, A.K.C.K. and 1.G.K., who were
under 18 years. The third child was an adult at the time of the state suit. The
trial court found it would be in the children’s best interest to have her parental
rights terminated because Fox endangered them. The court determined that Fox
was erratic and failed to comply with the court’s orders. She appealed the trial
court’s judgment. The Fourteenth Court of Appeals affirmed.
On July z, 2021, in federal court, Fox sued every person who worked on
her child custody case. Fox claims that she and her children’s fundamental
rights were violated based on child-custody proceedings and decisions made by
Judge Shapiro and the Texas Department of Family and Protective Services
employees. She sued for legal theories from state and federal law as well as
common law, As a pro so litigant, the court will construe her pleading liberally
and hold them to a less stringent standard than those drafted by attorneys.
2. State Court Decisions.
Rooker-Feldman bars federal courts from reviewing state court judgments,
including claims that are “inextricably intertwined” with the merits of state court
judgments,” Fox is seeking to re-litigate a state court judgment. Her request for
a declaratory judgment and monetary damages of $48 million are tied with the
state court’s decision to terminate her parental rights.
Fox appealed the state court judgment. The appeal confirmed the trial
court's decision that it was in the children’s best interest to end Fox’s parental
rights. This court lacks jurisdiction to review a past state-court judgment.
The Texas personnel who acted in concert with the child well-being
proceedings are also protected from liability because their acts are “inextricably
intertwined” with the state court’s decision.
3. Texas Department of Family and Protective Services.
A. The Department
Fox asserted claims against the Texas Department of Family and
Protective Services and its employees. In a 119 page, largely unorganized
complaint, she makes vague and conclusory allegations against the State's
intervention on behalf of her victimized children by accusing their foster care
givers and social workers of various wrongs. Every claim raised against the
Department in the complaint arose out of the state court’s proceedings to
terminate [’ox’s parental rights. It is barred under the national constitution.
The Eleventh Amendment limits suits against states in federal courts
unless a State consents, Texas has a limited waiver that does not apply in this
case. Fox’s claims against the State of Texas are barred by the Eleventh
Amendment, As an extension of the State, the Department and its
Commissioner, Jaime Masters, receives immunity.
Fox had initially sued Julie Change in her official capacity as the Chief
Executive Officer of the Department. On November 11, 2.021, she filed a motion
to substitute Betsy Runge as the Director of the Children Assessment Center.
Ir is unclear whether this Center is the same entity as the Department. If so,
Runge receives immunity, Even if she is not immune under the Eleventh
Amendment, the facts alleged against Change for overseeing the foster care
' See United States v. Sheperd, 23 F.3d 923, 924 (5" Cir. 1994)
system, and now Runge, would be barred in this court by Rooker-Feldman
because her claims are tied to the child-custody proceeding.
B. Child Protective Service Workers
Fox sues a broad swath of employees at the Department, some who did
not work on her case. Katie Olse, a former employee of the Department, did not
work for the department during Fox's child-custody removal or other proceeding.
Because Fox does give a cognizable claim against Olse, the claims against her are
dismissed,
The majority of Fox's claims are against Defendants’ Demetrias Byrd,
Roikesha Rochester, Johnette Finely, DeEdra Powell, and Stacy Truss, who are
employees of the Department. They worked on Fox’s child-custody case.
Fox's pleading claims the child protective services workers violated her
civil rights protections under the Constitution. To prevail on a civil rights claim,
Fox must establish that a person with the authority of the state deprived her of
a federally-protected right. It is unclear from the complaint what federal right, if
any, the defendants violated by visiting her home and requesting that she
undergo a psychological evaluation.
These employees were acting within their discretionary authority.
Because the child protective services employees do not violate a “clearly-
established” constitutional right, they are protected by qualified immunity.
C, The Prosecutors
Lynn Chamberlin and Courtney Hernandez are Assistant Harris County
Attorneys. [hey were the prosecutors in the state court proceeding. Prosecutors
have absolute immunity for conduct in preparation for and presenting the State’s
case,
For this reason, and those above, Fox's claims against the prosecutors are
also dismissed.
4, Kaysie Taccetta, Jose Martinez, and Katie Murphy
Fox does not describe a factual allegation against Taccetta. She does not
include this defendant in her pleading or show why she is entitled to relief
against Taccetta. Her claims will be dismissed.
Jose Martinez was named as a defendant by Fox. Because service was un-
executed, her claims against Martinez are dismissed for lack of service.
No facts in the pleading are alleged against Katie Murphy. It is unclear
whether she has been properly served. Damani Jerrols, an employee at the Light
Accommodation Child Placement Agency, signed on behalf of Murphy. Fox does
not specify Katie Murphy’s role in her pleading or where she is or was employed.
Fox's claims against Murphy will be dismissed for improper service and failure
to state a claim.
She also names the “United State,” City of Houston, and County of
Houston as defendants. Not one has been served. Fox’s claims against these
defendants are dismissed for improper service.
5. Unnamed “Does.”
Fox alleges that “does” sabotaged her mental health assessments and gave
false testimony. Because she does not allege specific facts against specific
defendants that supply the court with facts for a claim, her claims against the
“does” will be dismissed.
6. Conclusion.
Fox has not plausibly pleaded facts for her claims against any of the
defendants. All claims against all defendants in this case will be dismissed with
prejudice.
Signed on November 2B , 2021, at Houston, Texas.
Lynn N. Hughes
United States District Judge