VANWINKLE et al v. NICHOLS et al
| DEREK VANWINKLE and STACY VANWINKLE |
| CORTNEY DEMETRIS, MARI BRYAN MCGENEY, MONIQUE MILLER, SEANNA NICHOLS and PEGGY SURBEY |
| 1:2015cv01082 |
| July 10, 2015 |
| US District Court for the Southern District of Indiana |
| Indianapolis Office |
| Mark J. Dinsmore |
| Jane Magnus-Stinson |
| Civil Rights: Other |
| 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983 Civil Rights Act |
| Defendant |
Follow case documents by RSS
Available Case Documents
The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing
171
ORDER - Stacey and Derek VanWinkle have two daughters, MV who was born in 1999 and AV who was born in 2001. In November of 2012 and June of 2013, the Indiana Department of Child Services ("DCS") received calls to its hotline in which the callers alleged that Stacey VanWinkle was mistreating MV and AV. After an investigation which included two care conferences with several medical providers, DCS employees, and others, MV and AV were removed from the VanWinkle home. Two days after their removal, the Marion Superior Court found that the removal of MV and AV was necessary to protect them. Twenty-three days later, MV and AV were returned to their parents pursuant to a Marion Superior Court Order. Nearly two years later, this l awsuit followed in which Plaintiffs allege that various constitutional rights were violated. Presently pending before the Court, and ripe for decision, is a Motion for Summary Judgment filed by Defendants Seanna Nichols, Monique Miller, Peggy Surb ey, and Maribryan McGeney, who are all DCS employees (the "State Defendants"). [Filing No. 120 .] The Court GRANTS summary judgment in favor of Ms. Surbey and Ms. McGeney on all of Plaintiffs' claims. The Court DENIES Defendants� 39; Motion for Summary Judgment as it relates to their collateral estoppel argument. Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment is DENIED to the extent that the Court finds that Ms. Nichols and Ms. Miller are not entitled to absolute immunity. Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED on any Fourth Amendment claim asserted by Stacey and Derek VanWinkle on their own behalf. The Court finds that, as to MV's removal from the VanWinkle home, there is a genuine issue of fa ct regarding whether Ms. Nichols and Ms. Miller had probable cause to believe that MV was in imminent danger if she remained in the custody and care of the VanWinkles, and Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment as to MV's Fourth Amendme nt claim is DENIED. Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment as to qualified immunity for AV's Fourth Amendment claim is DENIED. Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment is DENIED as to Stacey and Derek VanWinkles' substantive du e process claim for the removal of MV from their home. Stacey and Derek VanWinkles' substantive due process claim related to AV's initial removal from the VanWinkle home survives summary judgment and the motion is DENIED as to that claim . Ms. Nichols and Ms. Miller are entitled to qualified immunity for that claim, and their Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED. Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment as to Plaintiffs' Fourteenth Amendment procedural due process claim related to the removal of MV and AV without a court order is DENIED. Based on the process provided to Plaintiffs which, notably, ultimately resulted in the release of MV and AV to their parents, the Court finds that there was not a procedural due process violation in connection with the substantiation of the allegations of abuse and GRANTS Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment on that claim. For the foregoing reasons, the Court GRANTS IN PART and DENIES IN PART Defendants' Mot ion for Summary Judgment. [Filing No. 120.] No partial final judgment shall issue. The Court requests that the Magistrate Judge confer with the parties regarding possible resolution of this matter prior to the November 27, 2017 trial. (See Order). Signed by Judge Jane Magnus-Stinson on 9/22/2017. (APD)
|
|
Filing
74
ORDER. Because neither judicial administrative considerations nor equitable considerations favors a piecemeal appeal, and because there are several just reasons for delay, the Court DENIES Dr. Demetris' Motion for Clarification or in the Alternative Motion for Entry of Final Partial Judgment, [Filing No. 59.] (See order.) Signed by Judge Jane Magnus-Stinson on 3/3/2016. (BGT)
|
|
Filing
57
ORDER. Dr. Demetris is shielded from liability for most of the actions Plaintiffs allege form the basis of their § 1983 conspiracy claim based on the absolute privileges of judicial immunity and witness immunity. Additionally, the remaining a ctions Plaintiffs allege Dr. Demetris undertook do not form a sufficient basis for a viable § 1983 conspiracy claim. Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Dr. Demetris' Motion to Dismiss, [Filing No. 43], and the Clerk is directed to TERMINATE D r. Demetris from the lawsuit. No partial judgment shall issue at this time. As dis-cussed above, the Court also GRANTS Dr. Demetris' Motion to Strike. [Filing No. 54.] The Court requests that the Magistrate Judge confer with the remaining parties to establish a schedule for bringing Plaintiffs' remaining claims to conclusion. SEE ORDER. Signed by Judge Jane Magnus-Stinson on 12/18/2015. (BGT)
|
Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the US Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.
Access this case on the Indiana Southern District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System
- Search for Party Aliases
- Associated Cases
- Attorneys
- Case File Location
- Case Summary
- Docket Report
- History/Documents
- Parties
- Related Transactions
- Check Status
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
