H.H., et al. v. Margie Quin, et al.

Summary

This memorandum opinion from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee addresses Plaintiffs’ motion for a temporary restraining order under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65. The Plaintiffs allege that Tennessee Department of Children’s Services personnel and associated attorneys pressured H.H., a Haitian-born minor nearing adulthood, to sign immigration documents and threatened consequences involving deportation, custody, and placement. The opinion states that the Court will grant the motion by separate order, subject to the reasons and caveats discussed in the opinion.

Holdings

1. Plaintiffs demonstrated a bare likelihood of success on Count I because using the custody of minors as leverage to force H.H. to sign unwanted immigration documents could shock the conscience and violate the parental due-process rights of Kelli Hewitt, James Hewitt, and Lacey Perry.
2. Plaintiffs did not demonstrate a likelihood of success on Count II because the record did not show that H.H. was in the adjudicatory stage of the juvenile process when the challenged conduct occurred.
3. Plaintiffs established that irreparable harm was likely absent a TRO.
4. The balance of equities and the public interest favored issuing a 14-day TRO preserving the status quo.
5. The court declined to require plaintiffs to post security.

Questions Presented

1. Whether plaintiffs demonstrated a likelihood of success on their claim that DCS's threatened removal of children as leverage to compel H.H. to sign immigration documents violated the parental substantive due-process rights of Kelli Hewitt, James Hewitt, and Lacey Perry.
2. Whether H.H. demonstrated a likelihood of success on a due-process claim based on a right to fundamental fairness in juvenile proceedings.
3. Whether plaintiffs established irreparable harm, favorable equities, and a public interest sufficient to warrant a temporary restraining order.
4. Whether the court should require security under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(c).
5. Whether an immediate hearing on the TRO motion was necessary.

Disposition

other