http://www.secondcircuitopinions.org/2010/01/04/cornejo-v-bell-08-3069-cv-2d-cir-january-4-2010/
Cornejo v. Bell, 08-3069-cv (2d Cir. January 4, 2010)
January 4, 2010
in 1983 Action, Due Process
Panel: Miner, Cabranes, and Rakoff (SDNY)
Opinion by: Rakoff, USDJ
Appeal from: EDNY (Cogan, USDJ)
Result below: Granted Summary Judgment based upon absolute immunity
Result: Affirmed, but caseworkers entitled only to qualified immunity under Federal law
Qualified Immunity for Child Removal Caseworkers
An unfortunate (but objectively reasonable) misdiagnosis leads to a lawsuit by aggrieved parents for malicious prosecution against lawyers and caseworkers involved in child custody proceedings. Plaintiffs five-month old son appeared to be the victim of the Shaken Baby Syndrome. Defendants thus petitioned to have the son and an older brother removed from the plainiffs’ custody. A subsequent autopsy showed that the boy died of a rare heart defect, and what initially appeared to be a broken rib turned out to be a congenital abnormality.
The district court granted summary judgment to the defendants, lawyers and caseworkers involved in the removal petition, on the ground that they were absolutely immune. The Second Circuit affirms the grant of summary judgment, but notes that caseworkers are entitled only to qualified immunity.
The level of immunity accorded an executive employee depends on the function of the employee. Judicial employees (like prosecutors) are entitled to absolute immunity. Investigative employees (like police making arrests) are entitled to qualified immunity. Here, the lawyers are essentially judicial employees entitled to absolute immunity, and the caseworkers are essentially investigative employees entitled to qualified immunity. Because the objective evidence pointed to child abuse, summary judgment was appropriate even under the qualified immunity standard.
As to the NY state law claims, the Court of Appeals has accorded caseworkers absolute immunity for claims of malicious prosecution.
