TOPIC: 42 U.S.C. §1983 Deprivation of Rights
CASE: 31 Foster Children v. Bush., 5329 F. 3d 1255 (11th Cir. 2003)
FACTS: The plaintiffs on behalf of all children in Florida’s foster care sued the administrators of Florida’s foster care system for deficiencies in Florida’s foster care system such as denial of safe care that meets basic needs, lack of the right to prompt placement with permanent families among others. The suit was brought under § 1983 for a declaration that the alleged practices were unconstitutional and unlawful among other reliefs. Unfortunately, all the claims were dismissed by the District Court and 11 out of 21 plaintiffs settled their claims and the remaining 11 plaintiffs appealed to the Court of Appeals.
ISSUES:
- Whether the Plaintiffs’ claims presented a justiciable case.
- Whether the claims of two of the Plaintiffs are moot.
- Whether the other Plaintiffs had standing to challenge the practices at issue.
- Whether 42 U.S.C. §§ 675(5)(D) and (E) provide rights enforceable under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
HOLDING: The Court of Appeals held that two of the plaintiffs were indeed moot and there was no live controversy presented. Additionally, the Court of Appeals held that the Plaintiffs had standing because they were in the Defendants’ physical custody and also had the standing to pursue their sibling association claims because their siblings were in the defendants’ physical custody. The Court also held that §§ 675(5)(D) and (E) do not contain rights-creating language.
RULE: The three elements for a plaintiff to have standing include:
- The plaintiff has suffered an injury in fact or invasion of a judicially cognizable interest that is particularized and actual.
- There is a causal connection between the injury and the conduct complained of and
- The injury will be redressed by a favorable decision.
Plaintiff has the burden to prove the elements and provide the evidence to prove the legal standing question is posed. In order to have a viable cause of action under § 1983, a Plaintiff must establish that the statute allegedly violated the Plaintiff’s enforceable rights. The three requirements for a federal statute to be read to confer a right enforceable under § 1983 include that:
- Congress must have intended that the provisions in question benefit Plaintiff;
- The right assertedly protected by the statute is not so vague and amorphous that its enforcement would strain judicial resources; and
- The provision asserted right must be couched in mandatory, rather than precatory, terms.
REASONING: The Court of Appeals stated that the two plaintiffs had been adopted and therefore, they were no longer in the Defendants’ legal custody. In as much they had no legally cognizable interest in the outcome of the suit. The Court also stated that the two plaintiffs could not be harmed by the Defendants’ illegal practices and there was no live controversy because the amended complaints sought injunctive relief to present future harm. Because the Plaintiffs are in custody until they are returned to their parents or adopted, they cannot avoid exposure to the Defendants’ practices and there was a likelihood that the alleged injury will occur. The court also stated that the two plaintiffs who were not in physical custody could not demonstrate that their constitutional injuries were imminent. The courts must look at the text and structure of a statute in order to determine if it unambiguously provides enforceable rights. The provisions in the Act do not give the Plaintiffs an unambiguously conferred right to support a cause of action brought under § 1983.”
JUDGEMENT: The Court of Appeal vacated the District Court’s judgment in part and remanded the case for dismissal in part for moot and for lack of standing and affirmed the judgment in all other respects.
References:
https://www.americanbar.org/groups/litigation/committees/childrens-rights/articles/2013/social-services-constitutional-rights-balancing-act/