Batten v. Gomez

PUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

LUCINDA LANGDON BATTEN; BRITTANY 

ROSE LANGDON, a minor, by and

through her guardian ad litem, Cynthia

A. Singletary,

Plaintiffs-Appellants,

v.

STEVEN GOMEZ, in his official and

individual capacities as a Senior

Investigator for the District Attorney

of Riverside County, California;

SANDRA SHUSTER, in her official and

individual capacities as Senior

Investigator for the District Attorney

of Riverside County, California,

Defendants-Appellees,

 No. 02-1087

and

LEE GUY, in his official and individual

capacities as Deputy Sheriff of Bladen

County, North Carolina; LARRY

GUYTON, in his official and individual

capacities as an Investigator for the

Sheriff’s Department in Bladen

County, North Carolina; STEVE LESANE,

in his official and individual capacities

as Deputy Sheriff of Bladen County,

North Carolina; NATIONAL UNION FIRE

INSURANCE COMPANY OF PITTSBURGH,

PENNSYLVANIA; THE INSURANCE

COMPANY OF NORTH AMERICA,

Defendants.



2 BATTEN v. GOMEZ

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Wilmington.

James C. Fox, Senior District Judge.

(CA-99-198-7-F)

Argued: December 6, 2002

Decided: February 24, 2003

Before LUTTIG and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges, and

HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by published opinion. Judge Hamilton wrote the opinion, in

which Judge Luttig and Judge Traxler joined.

COUNSEL

ARGUED: Richard Brooks Glazier, BEAVER, HOLT, STERN-

LICHT, GLAZIER, CARLIN, BRITTON & COURIE, P.A., Fayette-

ville, North Carolina, for Appellants. Andrew John Hanley,

CROSSLEY, MCINTOSH, PRIOR & COLLIER, Wilmington, North

Carolina, for Appellees. ON BRIEF: H. Gerald Beaver, BEAVER,

HOLT, STERNLICHT, GLAZIER, CARLIN, BRITTON & COU-

RIE, P.A., Fayetteville, North Carolina, for Appellants.

OPINION

HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge:

On September 7, 1999, the plaintiffs, Lucinda Langdon Batten

(Batten) and her daughter, Brittany Rose Langdon (Brittany), by and

through her guardian ad litem (Cynthia Singletary), brought this

action against three deputies with the Bladen County, North Carolina

Sheriff’s Department (Lee Guy, Larry Guyton, and Steven Lesane)

and two investigators with the Office of the District Attorney of Riv-

BATTEN v. GOMEZ 3

erside County, California (Sandra Shuster and Steven Gomez). In

their complaint, the plaintiffs alleged multiple civil rights claims pur-

suant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, as well as a series of North Carolina state

law claims. After the plaintiffs settled their claims with the North Car-

olina defendants, Shuster and Gomez, pursuant to Federal Rule of

Civil Procedure 56, moved for summary judgment alleging, inter alia,

that they were immune from suit under the doctrine of qualified

immunity. On December 21, 2001, the district court granted Shuster

and Gomez’s motion for summary judgment, holding that Shuster and

Gomez were entitled to qualified immunity on the plaintiffs’ § 1983

claims. In its order, the district court declined to exercise supplemen-

tal jurisdiction over the state law claims and dismissed them without

prejudice. The plaintiffs appeal, and we now affirm.

I

Batten was born and raised in Bladen County, North Carolina. In

the mid-1980s, she moved to Florida with her second husband,

Michael Batten, who fathered her child, Joanna, in 1987. Michael

Batten allegedly beat and abused Batten and, in 1988, she moved to

South Carolina with Joanna. At some point while living in South Car-

olina, Batten began to date Timothy Soulis (Soulis), Brittany’s father.

Soulis abducted Batten at gun point in 1989 and, thereafter, they

(without Joanna) began a one to two-year journey through Canada

and Arizona that ended in California near some of Soulis’s relatives.

Although Soulis often held a job and worked away from the various

apartments in which they were staying, Batten was afraid to escape

or call the police or her relatives because she thought Soulis was act-

ing on behalf of Michael Batten to deprive her of the custody and the

companionship of Joanna. During this time, Michael Batten filed a

custody proceeding in Florida and was granted sole custody of

Joanna.

Brittany was born to Batten and Soulis on July 10, 1990 in a hospi-

tal in Orange County, California, while they were living in Riverside

County, California. Soulis was acknowledged on the birth certificate

as Brittany’s father. In November 1990, Batten left with Brittany for

Bladen County, North Carolina after a friend, Paul Smith (Smith),

4 BATTEN v. GOMEZ

arranged to leave a ticket for her at the airport. Batten fled because

Soulis allegedly beat and threatened her on numerous occasions.

Soulis promptly filed charges of child abduction against Batten and

instituted civil proceedings to enforce his rights as a parent under Cal-

ifornia law. In July 1991, the Municipal Court of Riverside County

issued a felony warrant for Batten’s arrest for child abduction. On

July 22, 1991, the Superior Court of Riverside County issued a Cali-

fornia Family Code Section 4604 order (the 4604 Order) directing the

District Attorney of Riverside County to "take all actions necessary

to locate" Batten and Brittany and "to return" Brittany to the court’s

jurisdiction. (J.A. 552).1

After returning to Bladen County, North Carolina, Batten began to

date and live with Smith. At some point in late 1996, Batten caught

Deputy Lee Guy’s brother, Donnie Guy, peeping in one of the win-

dows of her home. Batten subsequently caught Donnie Guy peeping

in her window a second time, called 911, and filed a criminal misde-

meanor charge against him. Donnie Guy’s trial on this misdemeanor

charge was scheduled for January 27, 1997.

Thereafter, Deputy Lee Guy ran a criminal records search on Bat-

ten and discovered the outstanding California felony arrest warrant

and the 4604 Order. Once he learned of the felony arrest warrant and

the 4604 Order, Deputy Lee Guy called the Riverside County District

Attorney’s Office and notified the office that he had found Batten and

1

Section 4604 provides in relevant part:

In any case where a petition to determine custody of a child has

been filed in a court of competent jurisdiction, or where a tempo-

rary order pending determination of custody has been entered in

accordance with Section 4600.1, and the whereabouts of a party

in possession of the child are not known, or there is a reason to

believe that such party may not appear although ordered to

appear personally with the child pursuant to Section 5160, the

district attorney shall take all actions necessary to locate such

party and the child and to procure compliance with the order to

appear with the child for the purposes of adjudication of custody.

Cal. Fam. Code § 4604(a).

BATTEN v. GOMEZ 5

made arrangements to coordinate the execution of the felony arrest

warrant and 4604 Order.

Sandra Shuster (Shuster) and Steven Gomez (Gomez) are investi-

gators with the District Attorney of Riverside County, California.

After being contacted by Deputy Lee Guy in January 1997, Shuster

confirmed with the California courts that the 4604 Order and felony

arrest warrant were still in effect and made arrangements to go to

North Carolina on January 23, 1997 to pick up Brittany. Prior to leav-

ing for North Carolina, Shuster called the Riverside County Superior

Court to ask for an immediate hearing once the court’s 4604 Order

was executed. The Riverside County Superior Court agreed to hold

an immediate hearing after the 4604 Order was executed.

Prior to arriving in North Carolina, Shuster faxed the 4604 Order

to Bladen County and upon arrival asked the Sheriff’s Department if

she needed to do anything in connection with the order such as filing

a North Carolina action or having the order countersigned (domesti-

cated) by a North Carolina judge. Shuster and Gomez followed a sim-

ilar process in every out-of-state abduction case; they present the

4604 Order to local law enforcement and ask if there is anything else

that needs to be done such as filing or domesticating the order. If they

are informed that the 4604 Order needs to be domesticated, they will

take the necessary steps to domesticate the order.

Shuster presented the paperwork to the Bladen County Sheriff’s

Department and asked if the paperwork was in order. The contact at

the Bladen County Sheriff’s Department, Deputy Larry Guyton (Dep-

uty Guyton), reviewed the paperwork and allegedly showed it to the

local District Attorney who informed him that the paperwork was in

order and that they could seize the child. According to Deputy Guy-

ton, the District Attorney informed him that the orders were valid in

North Carolina and Deputy Guyton conveyed this information to

Shuster and Gomez.2

2

In his affidavit, the then District Attorney for Bladen County, Marion

Warren (now Judge Warren), states that he has no recollection of the

alleged meeting he had with Deputy Guyton and no recollection of see-

ing the 4604 Order.

6 BATTEN v. GOMEZ

Shuster, accompanied by Deputy Steven Lesane (Deputy Lesane),

picked up Brittany at her school. Gomez, accompanied by Deputy

Guyton, met Batten at her place of employment. Gomez and Deputy

Guyton explained that they had an order to pick up her child and a

warrant to arrest her for child abduction. She was offered a choice of

facing extradition or waiving extradition and voluntarily returning

with the California investigators and Brittany to court in California.

Batten agreed to accompany the California investigators and Brittany

to California. Batten was allowed to leave work and return home

unaccompanied to pack some clothes for her and her daughter. Once

at home, she contacted her attorney. Thereafter, she met Shuster,

Gomez, and Brittany at the airport.

In California, Batten was taken before a magistrate, released on her

own recognizance, and placed in a hotel room at state expense.3 The

plaintiffs concede that the Riverside County Superior Court held

prompt hearings and awarded temporary custody of Brittany to Soulis.4

Thereafter, Soulis took temporary custody of Brittany, but at the cus-

tody hearing on February 18, 1998, the Riverside County Superior

Court held that North Carolina was the proper jurisdiction to decide

the question of custody. Following custody proceedings in Bladen

County, North Carolina, Batten was awarded custody of Brittany.

On September 7, 1999, the plaintiffs brought this § 1983 action

against Deputy Lee Guy, Deputy Guyton, Deputy Lesane, Shuster,

and Gomez. The plaintiffs alleged multiple civil rights claims pursu-

ant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, as well as a series of North Carolina state

law claims.

In May 2001, the North Carolina defendants settled their claims

with the plaintiffs for $75,000. After the conclusion of discovery,

Shuster and Gomez filed a motion for summary judgment, pursuant

to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56, alleging, inter alia, that they

were immune from suit under the doctrine of qualified immunity. On

December 21, 2001, the district court granted Shuster and Gomez’s

3

As a result of her presence in California, the case against Donnie Guy

was dismissed.

4

On May 12, 1997, the child abduction charge against Batten was dis-

missed.

BATTEN v. GOMEZ 7

motion with regard to the § 1983 claims. In its order, the district court

declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law

claims and dismissed them without prejudice. This appeal followed.

II

Entitlement to qualified immunity must be analyzed in two steps,

which are to be "considered in proper sequence." Saucier v. Katz, 533

U.S. 194, 200 (2001). As a "threshold question," a court must ask

whether, "[t]aken in the light most favorable to the party asserting the

injury, . . . the facts alleged show [that] the officer’s conduct violated

a constitutional right." Id. at 201. If the answer is no, then the analysis

ends; the plaintiff cannot prevail. Id. If the answer is yes, then "the

next, sequential step is to ask whether the right was clearly estab-

lished" at the time of the events at issue. Id. This determination must

be made "in light of the specific context of the case, not as a broad

general proposition." Id. If the right was not "clearly established" in

the "specific context of the case"—that is, if it was not "clear to a rea-

sonable officer" that the conduct in which he allegedly engaged "was

unlawful in the situation he confronted"—then the law affords immu-

nity from suit. Id. at 201-02. Accordingly, the answer to both Saucier

questions must be in the affirmative in order for a plaintiff to defeat

a defendant police officer’s motion for summary judgment on quali-

fied immunity grounds.

A

Batten claims that her constitutional rights were violated because

Shuster and Gomez failed to comply with North Carolina’s extradi-

tion laws before transporting her to California. More specifically, Bat-

ten complains that, before transporting her to California, she was not

informed of her extradition rights and was not afforded an extradition

hearing.

To state a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claim for illegal extradition, an indi-

vidual must show that the violation of the state’s extradition laws

"cause[d] the deprivation of rights protected by the Constitution and

statutes of the United States." Wirth v. Surles, 562 F.2d 319, 322 (4th

Cir. 1977) (arrest and transportation of alleged fugitive without extra-

dition proceedings does not constitute defense to criminal prosecution

8 BATTEN v. GOMEZ

but does create cause of action pursuant to § 1983). In this case, Bat-

ten’s § 1983 illegal extradition claim fails for the simple reason that

there was no violation of North Carolina’s extradition laws.

The North Carolina Uniform Criminal Extradition Act (NCUCEA),

N.C. Gen. Stat. §§ 15A-721-750, sets up a series of detailed proce-

dures that must be followed by a state demanding the extradition of

a person charged with a crime in the state demanding extradition.

Under the NCUCEA, an extradition request must be made in writing

to the Governor. Id. § 15A-723. The request must include a support-

ing affidavit charging the defendant with the crime and a copy of the

charge must be attached to the request, id., and, if the defendant has

not been arrested, the Governor must sign an arrest warrant for the

defendant, id. § 15A-727.5 A defendant must be notified of her rights

when arrested to contest extradition and must be informed of the

nature of the charges against her and her right to counsel. Id. § 15A-

730. The NCUCEA, however, permits a person who learns of crimi-

nal charges against her in another state to elect to travel voluntarily

to that state to face the charges. Id. § 15A-746 ("[N]othing in this sec-

tion shall be deemed to limit the rights of the accused person to return

voluntarily and without formality to the demanding state, nor shall

this waiver procedure be deemed to be an exclusive procedure or to

limit the powers, rights or duties of the officers of the demanding

state or of this State.").

In this case, Batten was given an option, she could either voluntar-

ily accompany Shuster and Gomez to California or she could be

arrested by Bladen County and held in jail pending formal extradition.

Batten, after privately conferring with her attorney, voluntarily

accompanied Shuster and Gomez to California. Simply put, Batten

knowingly and voluntarily chose to waive her extradition rights and

go to California. Under such circumstances, we see no constitutional

5

Under the NCUCEA, a North Carolina arrest warrant was not

required to arrest Batten pursuant to the felony arrest warrant for child

abduction. N.C. Gen. Stat. § 15A-734 ("The arrest of a person may be

lawfully made also by any peace officer or a private person, without a

warrant, upon reasonable information that the accused stands charged in

the courts of a state with a crime punishable by death or imprisonment

exceeding one year.").

BATTEN v. GOMEZ 9

infirmity. Cf. Pierson v. Grant, 527 F.2d 161, 164-65 (8th Cir. 1975)

(holding that waiver of extradition rights is voluntary as long as the

alleged fugitive had a general knowledge and understanding of what

was involved in the waiver when he signed it); Morrison v. Stepanski,

839 F. Supp. 1130, 1140 (M.D. Pa. 1993) (holding that waiver of

extradition rights must be "knowing" in the sense that the alleged

fugitive understands that he has certain rights under the law and affir-

matively indicates an intention to relinquish those rights and "volun-

tary" in the sense that it was given with the alleged fugitive’s free

choice). Accordingly, the district court did not err when it granted

summary judgment in favor of Shuster and Gomez on Batten’s § 1983

illegal extradition claim.

B

Batten also claims that the seizure of Brittany deprived her of her

liberty interest, protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth

Amendment, in the companionship, care, custody, and control of her

child.

Indisputably, the seizure of Brittany constitutes an interference

with Batten’s liberty interest and thus triggers the procedural protec-

tions of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Las-

siter v. Dep’t of Soc. Servs., 452 U.S. 18, 27 (1981); Jordan by

Jordan v. Jackson, 15 F.3d 333, 342 (4th Cir. 1994). To meet the

requirements of due process, the state must afford notice and an

opportunity to be heard "at a meaningful time and in a meaningful

manner." Armstrong v. Manzo, 380 U.S. 545, 552 (1965). Generally,

absent exigent circumstances, due process requires a hearing before

state officials may remove a child from her home. Jordan by Jordan,

15 F.3d at 343; see also Morrell v. Mock, 270 F.3d 1090, 1095 (7th

Cir. 2001), cert. denied, 123 S. Ct. 71 (2002). Moreover, if exigent

circumstances are present, there must be prompt "adequate post-

deprivation process to ratify the emergency action." Jordan by Jor-

dan, 15 F.3d at 343. Finally, due process requires "pre-enforcement

notice and some opportunity to object before law enforcement offi-

cials may separate a parent from her child pursuant to an out-of-state"

order. Morrell, 270 F.3d at 1097-1100 (holding that, after balancing

the nature of each parent’s liberty interest in their relationship with

the child, the risk of harm from erroneous deprivations, and the gov-

10 BATTEN v. GOMEZ

ernment’s interests in facilitating interstate recognition and enforce-

ment of child custody decrees and in deterring the unilateral removal

of children through the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction Act, due

process requires "pre-enforcement notice and some opportunity to

object before law enforcement officials may separate a parent from

her child pursuant to an out-of-state default order transferring cus-

tody").

In this case, Shuster and Gomez do not contend, nor could they,

that there were exigent circumstances that justified the seizure of Brit-

tany without notice and a hearing. Furthermore, Shuster and Gomez

concede that there was no pre-enforcement notice and no opportunity

to object before Brittany’s seizure pursuant to the 4604 order. Under

these circumstances, we are satisfied that Batten has stated a claim for

a deprivation, without due process, of her liberty interest in not being

separated from Brittany without prior notice to her in North Carolina

and without exigent circumstances.

We conclude, however, that Shuster and Gomez are entitled to

qualified immunity on Batten’s claim that the seizure of Brittany

deprived Batten of her liberty interest, protected by the Due Process

Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, in the companionship, care,

custody, and control of her child. In assessing whether the right at

issue was clearly established at the time of the state official’s actions,

we focus upon "the right [not] at its most general or abstract level, but

at the level of its application to the specific conduct being chal-

lenged." Wiley v. Doory, 14 F.3d 993, 995 (4th Cir. 1994) (citation

and internal quotation marks omitted); see also Anderson v. Creigh-

ton, 483 U.S. 635, 640 (1987) ("The contours of the right must be suf-

ficiently clear that a reasonable official would understand that what

he is doing violates that right."). This does not mean, however, that

a state official will be protected by qualified immunity unless the very

act in question has previously been held unlawful. Anderson, 483 U.S.

at 640. Rather, the unlawfulness must be apparent in light of pre-

existing law. Id.

The gist of Batten’s argument is that it was clearly established that

due process required notice and an opportunity to be heard before a

state official could interfere with a mother’s liberty interest in her

child. The statement of the right at this level of generality, however,

BATTEN v. GOMEZ 11

is of little help in determining the reasonableness of Shuster and

Gomez’s conduct. Id. at 639-40. As the court in Morrell explained,

"[t]he appropriate question is whether it would be clear to reasonable

officials in the defendants’ position that enforcing the [out-of-state]

order without prior notice or an opportunity to be heard in [the home

state] was unconstitutional." 270 F.3d at 1100.

In this case, aside from Morrell, we have been unable to find any

authoritative cases considering analogous circumstances that hold that

pre-deprivation notice and an opportunity to be heard is required as

a matter of constitutional due process before a state may enforce

another state’s order directing that a child be brought before the out-

of-state court. Because Morrell was decided after Shuster and

Gomez’s actions in this case, Shuster and Gomez, like the defendants

in Morrell, are immune from suit under the law of qualified immunity.6

III

For the reasons stated herein, the judgment of the district court is

affirmed.

AFFIRMED

6

The plaintiffs contend that Brittany was unconstitutionally seized and

transported to California in violation of her Fourth and Fourteenth

Amendment rights. We have reviewed this claim and agree with the dis-

trict court that Shuster and Gomez are entitled to qualified immunity on

this claim because Shuster and Gomez violated no clearly established

right held by Brittany.