Custody Dispute Leads to Lawsuit Againt Local Officials

brockinton v. city of sherwood, ark., 503 f.3d 667, 674 (8th cir. 2007). because we from his custody, the defendants interfered with his constitutional right as a parent to the children, she essentially agreed to have the children's grandparents provide child -8- on july 10. officer lene discussed the safety plan with mr. murray by phone on july advice from the county attorney, mr. williams. at mr. williams's suggestion, officer ___________ he would comply with a court order requiring him to release the children to their entry of default judgment in the amount of $100 against ms. vittetoe and remand to for the foregoing reasons, we affirm the district court's dismissal of the (quoting franks v. delaware, 438 u.s. 154, 171 (1978)). mr. murray does not accuse in missouri to whom the children could be returned, we think that this would be more custodian in missouri" at the expiration of his visitation rights outside the state. director. dss director, it did not abuse its discretion by declining to exercise supplemental appropriate. the children were to stay with ms. vittetoe's parents during the course -7- wasunreasonablyseizedinviolationofthefourthamendment. probablecauseexisted not to have any contact with the children, and that mr. murray told officer lene that design corp., 581 f.3d 737, 743 (8th cir. 2009). was no legal custodian in missouri to whom the children could be returned. not entitled to recover damages from ms. vittetoe in any amount because his appellant, * no. 09-1198 present record would not support a conclusion that he acted with "reckless disregard against ms. vittetoe and her husband. when mr. murray relayed these allegations to does not admit mere conclusions of law." 10a c. wright, a. miller & m. kane, director and any other alleged conspirator, and so the district court correctly decided complaint against ms. steele and the dss director for failure to state a claim, as well concedes we must do, it is apparent, even viewing the facts favorably to mr. murray, its employees is found liable, see, e.g., turpin v. county of rock, 262 f.3d 779, 784 obviously give the right of custody to mr. murray under these circumstances, and a believe that mr. murray violated § 565.156. * indirectly suggest such a "meeting of the minds" between ms. steele or the dss finally, mr. murray's claims against the sheriff and the board of commissioners ronald murray brought an action for damages under 42 u.s.c. § 1983 and care for more than four hours a day. this event, according to mr. murray, triggered ii. capacity; director of the missouri * eastern district of missouri. mr. murray's contention, discussed above, that there was no "legal guardian" present this standard. missouri's child abduction statute does not take into account whether 2005, at which time mr. murray was obligated to return the children to ms. vittetoe this offense because a provision in the joint parenting plan provided that "[i]f child substantive due process claim. mr. murray maintains that by removing the children appellees. * of the investigation. ms. vittetoe agreed to the arrangement. -6- rights, unreasonably seized him in violation of the fourth amendment, and violated the the parents shared joint custody, so the officer's omission of this information had no ms. vittetoe then filed a complaint with the adair county sheriff's office 12(b)(6). a complaint "must contain facts sufficient to state a claim as a matter of law i. capacity in the state of missouri; * officer lene of any deliberate falsehood; he asserts instead that the officer exhibited cause. even though the inclusion of this information might have strengthened was adopted by a missouri court, see mo. rev. stat. §§ 452.310.8, 452.375.9, the 427 f.3d 525, 534 (8th cir. 2005). ms. steele and the dss director for failure to state a claim. see fed. r. civ. p. 11 but he refused to comply, stating that he would not relinquish the children to their ronald d. murray, jr., * a "meeting of the minds" among the alleged conspirators. kearse v. moffett, 311 f.3d husband could not contact the children until an mdfs case worker deemed it under missouri law, child abduction occurs when a person, "[a]t the expiration ___________ custody of their two children. pursuant to what is called a joint parenting plan that adair county, missouri; kayela * ­ that she made a sworn statement against mr. murray for his failure to return the 1445 (8th cir. 1995) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted), cert. denied, legal custodians of the children, and therefore that mr. murray committed the offense conducting the child abuse investigation. see id.; cf. heartland acad. cmty. church, supplemental jurisdiction over his state claims against ms. steele and the dss had already expired when he spoke to officer lene, and his willingness to return the ___________ favor of officer lene, the adair county sheriff, and the adair county commissioners, * maternal grandparents without a court order requiring him to do so. he also told the that ms. vittetoe conspired with state officials to violate his constitutional rights, but, mr. murray's complaint did not make out a federal claim against ms. steele or the mr. murray was willing to comply with a court order to return the children, that county commissioners, and the adair county sheriff. we vacate the district court's regarding mr. murray's failure to return the children, whereupon officer lene sought missouri and ms. vittetoe, arguing that it could not bind him or transfer custody of the case, as there does not appear to be any causal connection between officer lene's officer lene violated his fourth amendment rights by submitting a false and that any disruption in custodial rights was justified by the government's interest in omitted). of child abduction by refusing to return the children to their grandparents after his the unchallenged facts constitute a legitimate cause of action, since a party in default the investigation would also not have been "clearly critical" to the finding of probable individual capacity; christine steele, * appeal from the united states const. amends. iv, v, xiv. his complaint also contained various state tort claims refusal and instead opt to take custody of the child at that time." in mr. murray's department of social services, in his * federal practice and procedure § 2688 at 63 (3d ed. 1998). here, mr. murray alleges claim against ms. steele and the dss director was that they, along with other asked for damages of over $4 million. we conclude, however, that mr. murray was actions and the alleged constitutional deprivation. in any event, we agree with the children to missouri if compelled by a court order would not alter the conclusion that arnold, circuit judge. 1994). we therefore vacate the judgment for $100 against her. finally, mr. murray appeals the district court's entry of summary judgment in kayele vittetoe. mr. murray claimed that the defendants conspired to violate his civil we turn first to the district court's dismissal of mr. murray's complaint against as a matter of law. fitzgerald v. action, inc., 521 f.3d 867, 871 (8th cir. 2008). statement. mr. murray asserts that officer lene should have included in his statement 98 f.3d 1096, 1097-98 (8th cir. 1996). a fourth amendment violation occurred if a default judgment against ms. vittetoe in the amount of only $100 even though he is appropriate if the evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to mr. murray, motion to alter or amend the order of dismissal. the district court later entered a as with ms. steele and the dss director, the factual allegations against ms. vittetoe mr. murray's proposed construction of the agreement is not altogether have consistently held that a municipality cannot be liable under § 1983 unless one of the return of the child to the legal custodian in missouri." mo. rev. stat. for the truth" in preparing his affidavit. the district court thus correctly granted a conspiracy claim, however, requires allegations of specific facts tending to show mr. murray argues that, because there was no probable cause to arrest him, he elements of § 565.156(2) were missing: his visitation rights had not expired and there -4- united states court of appeals amount of damages) are taken as true, but "it remains for the court to consider whether complaint against ms. vittetoe. see black v. lane, 22 f.3d 1395, 1399 (7th cir. v. * upon default, the factual allegations of a complaint (except those relating to the due process rights that the fifth and fourteenth amendments guarantee. see u.s. (8th cir. 2001); reynolds v. city of little rock, 893 f.2d 1004, 1007 (8th cir. 1990), brown, 395 f.3d 842, 844 (8th cir. 2005) (internal quotation marks and citation (8th cir. 2005). he takes issue with the safety plan entered into between the state of filed: february 23, 2010 his right of refusal and eliminated his obligation to return the children to missouri on that he was guilty. officer lene's omissions might have been negligent, but the before loken, chief judge, arnold, and benton, circuit judges. on officer lene's affidavit, mr. williams initiated a prosecution against mr. murray mr. murray and ms. vittetoe shared joint custody, and that ms. vittetoe had agreed presents no genuine issue of material fact and the defendants are entitled to judgment children were scheduled to stay in iowa with mr. murray from may 29 until july 10, a grand jury declined to indict mr. murray and mr. williams dismissed the submitted: december 17, 2009 the children to any other individual. mr. murray's real objection seems to be to * prosecution, mr. murray commenced this suit. for the eighth circuit not to have any contact with the children during the course of the investigation. based -3- conspiracy claim requires such a finding, the district court should have dismissed the ______________________________ in her official and individual * district court for the and must not be merely conclusory in its allegations." springdale educ. ass'n v. missourilawagainstthedirectorofthemissouridepartmentofsocialservices(dss) summary judgment on this claim. care is needed for more than four hours a day, the other parent can have the right of the fact that ms. vittetoe agreed not to have contact with the children during grandparents. we construe mr. murray's complaint to allege a similar, but distinct, claim that jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims against them. see glorvigen v. cirrus district court that after balancing mr. murray's fundamental right as a parent against july 10. he contends that probable cause therefore did not exist because proof of two -9- cir. 2000). the factual allegations in mr. murray's complaint do not directly or misleading affidavit in support of the warrant for his arrest. see bagby v. brondhaver, the government's compelling interest in protecting children, which mr. murray default judgment against ms. vittetoe in the amount of $100 and granted summary in missouri. during the visit, however, the children made allegations of sexual abuse ___________ officer lene's probable cause statement contained a " 'deliberate falsehood' " or he on the unreasonable seizure and substantive due process claims. summary judgment prudent person in believing" that mr. murray had committed an offense. flynn v. judgment to the remaining defendants. on appeal, mr. murray challenges all of the the custody and control of his children. see abdouch v. burger, 426 f.3d 982, 987 891, 892 (8th cir. 2002) (per curiam); smithson v. aldrich, 235 f.3d 1058, 1063 (8th iv. in their official capacities are treated as claims against adair county itself. see moreover, why there was probable cause to believe that mr. murray's visitation rights if "the totality of facts based on reasonably trustworthy information would justify a despite his duty to do so, mr. murray did not return the children to missouri against the defendants. defendants, conspired to violate mr. murray's constitutional rights under § 1983. detained him for about a month before it released him on his own recognizance. after took place between ms. vittetoe and anyone else. since, as we noted above, a valid and one of its employees, christine steele; adair county, missouri, deputy jason * bearing whatever on the existence of probable cause. we have already explained, the district court dismissed mr. murray's amended complaint against a reckless disregard for the truth when he failed to include various facts in his ___________ officer that if such an order were issued, he would comply. as the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of officer lene, the adair 516 u.s. 871 (1995). we do not believe that any of officer lene's omissions meet clearly critical to the finding of probable cause." united states v. ozar, 50 f.3d 1440, vittetoe, in her individual capacity, * of visitation rights outside the state, intentionally fails or refuses to return or impedes mr. murray, who lives in iowa, and ms. vittetoe, who lives in missouri, shared that mr. murray failed to state a claim under § 1983. once the court concluded that complaint failed to state a claim against her. district court's rulings on his § 1983 claims, as well as its refusal to exercise mr.murrayalsocontendsthatthedistrictcourtabuseditsdiscretionbyentering jason lene, in his official and * an iowa social worker, the social worker contacted the missouri division of family we have held that "recklessness may be inferred from the omission of children to her ­ are not sufficient to support a finding that a "meeting of the minds" forabductinghischildrenandthecedarrapids,iowa,policedepartmentarrestedand information from an affidavit ... only when the material omitted would have been acted with " 'reckless disregard for the truth' " when he prepared it. id. at 1098 the district court also properly granted summary judgment on mr. murray's helped construct and implement a safety plan that provided that ms. vittetoe and her relevant to mr. murray's ultimate guilt, not whether probable cause existed to believe iii. lene prepared a probable cause statement, although he neglected to mention that ms. steele and the dss director for failure to state a claim and denied mr. murray's view, when ms. vittetoe agreed to abide by the safety plan and not have contact with that mr. murray and ms. vittetoe shared joint custody, that ms. vittetoe had agreed -2- ms. steele and the dss, who created the safety plan and have been dismissed from county missouri sheriff, in his official * prudent person could conclude that the safety plan made ms. vittetoe's parents the board of county commissioners for * springdale sch. dist., 133 f.3d 649, 651 (8th cir. 1998). mr. murray's sole federal or her individual capacity; adair * services (mdfs) (a division of dss) to investigate. ms. steele, an mdfs employee, visitation rights expired. accordingly, we hold that there was probable cause to § 565.156(2). mr. murray argues that there was no probable cause that he committed the district court for entry of judgment in favor of ms. vittetoe. he, when asked to do so by officer lene, refused "to return the children to the legal we conclude that the county was entitled to summary judgment. lene, and the county's sheriff and board of commissioners; and mr. murray's ex-wife, farfetched, but it is not the most reasonable one. in any event, the agreement does not -5-