Brittany Lynn Tobey v. State of Oklahoma ex rel. Department of Human Services, et al.

Summary

The United States District Court for the Northern District of Oklahoma addresses motions to dismiss claims arising from the removal of two children from their mother's home and their placement with relatives. The court dismisses the mother's claims under Oklahoma's child-stealing statute and for state-law and § 1983 conspiracy, and dismisses the children's conspiracy claim against an aunt. The court allows the children's Fourth Amendment unreasonable-seizure claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 to proceed against the Oklahoma Department of Human Services employee, rejecting statute-of-limitations and qualified-immunity arguments at this stage.

Holdings

1. The child-stealing statute requires the allegedly interfered-with right to custody or visitation to exist under an existing court order. Brittany failed to state a claim because she did not allege an applicable order establishing such a right.
2. The emergency protective order, as alleged, was not an applicable order under § 111.2 because Brittany did not allege that it established a custody or visitation right or that it was entered in the type of child-custody proceeding contemplated by the statute.
3. Brittany failed to state a § 1983 malicious-prosecution conspiracy claim because she did not allege specific facts showing an agreement among Lee, Dawneeia, and Maria to deprive her of a constitutional right or concerted action advancing that unconstitutional objective.
4. Brittany failed to state a civil-conspiracy claim because she did not adequately plead an underlying wrongful act.
5. The Children adequately stated a § 1983 claim against Lee for an unreasonable seizure in violation of the Fourth Amendment.
6. The Children failed to state a § 1983 conspiracy claim against Dawneeia because the complaint did not plausibly allege that she agreed to an unconstitutional goal or knew that Lee intended to remove the Children unlawfully.
7. The statute-of-limitations defense did not warrant dismissal because the Children were minors and Oklahoma tolling law potentially extended the time to sue until one year after the disability of minority was removed.
8. Lee was not entitled to qualified immunity at the pleading stage because the alleged warrantless removal of the Children without exigent circumstances violated a clearly established Fourth Amendment right.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Brittany stated a claim under Oklahoma's child-stealing statute, Okla. Stat. tit. 43, § 111.2, despite not alleging a custody or visitation right established by an applicable existing court order.
2. Whether Brittany stated a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claim for conspiracy to maliciously prosecute her through a guardianship proceeding.
3. Whether Brittany stated a claim for civil conspiracy under Oklahoma law.
4. Whether the Children stated a § 1983 claim against Tammy Lee for an unreasonable seizure under the Fourth Amendment.
5. Whether the Children stated a § 1983 conspiracy claim against Dawneeia Tobey.
6. Whether the Children's seizure claims were barred by the statute of limitations.
7. Whether qualified immunity protected Tammy Lee at the pleading stage.

Disposition

other