affirming the district court’s denial of a motion to dismiss and its rejection of defendants’ argument that in a qualified immunity context, defendants had to be on notice that it was constitutionally wrongful to allow a foster mother specifically to, inter alia, whip and starve a child, rather than bludgeon the child as in Taylor, 818 F.2d at 792
How later courts described this case
- affirming the district court’s denial of a motion to dismiss and its rejection of defendants’ argument that in a qualified immunity context, defendants had to be on notice that it was constitutionally wrongful to allow a foster mother specifically to, inter alia, whip and starve a child, rather than bludgeon the child as in Taylor, 818 F.2d at 792
- explaining that at the pleading stage, factual ambiguities in the complaint must be construed in favor of the plaintiff
- stating that “it is proper to grant a Rule 12(b)(6) motion if noncompliance with the statute of limitations is apparent on the face of the complaint”
- holding that foster children have a clearly established fourteenth amendment liberty interest in physical safety
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
[PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FILED
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
June 26, 2003
________________________ THOMAS K. KAHN
CLERK
No. 03-10594
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D. C. Docket No. 02-01063-CV-ORL-19
OMAR, by and through his next
friend, Kevin Cannon,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
JOAN LINDSEY,
GLORIA BABCOCK, et al.,
Defendants-Appellants.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Florida
_________________________
(June 26, 2003)
Before DUBINA, MARCUS and FAY, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
This is an interlocutory appeal from the denial of a motion to dismiss on the
grounds of qualified immunity. The suit is filed on behalf of a child removed from
his mother by personnel of the Florida Department of Children and Families. The
complaint alleges constitutional violations under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against these
individuals. The gravamen of the allegations is that these individuals knowingly
and deliberately ignored the physical, mental and emotional harm being caused
this child by the intentional infliction of known cruel and unusual punishment that
shocks the conscience of any reasonable person.
The ruling of the district court denying the motion to dismiss is affirmed for
the reasons set forth in its ORDER of January 14, 2003 which is attached as an
appendix.