Charles Volkers and Joyce Joplin v. Laura Johnson, et al.

Summary

The United States District Court for the Southern District of Illinois grants Defendants’ motion to dismiss Plaintiffs’ Second Amended Complaint in a pro se civil rights action arising from a child-welfare investigation and removal. The court concludes that Plaintiffs failed to allege each Defendant’s personal involvement, failed to plead alleged misrepresentations with the particularity required by Rule 9(b), and could not bring a Fourth Amendment seizure claim in their own names for the seizure of their children. The dismissal is without prejudice, and Plaintiffs are granted leave to file a third amended complaint by June 8, 2026.

Holdings

1. Counts I, II, and IV failed to state a claim because the Second Amended Complaint did not adequately identify each defendant's role or personal involvement, did not sufficiently plead the alleged misrepresentations, and did not establish facts supporting Volkers's standing based on a familial relationship with the children.
2. Count V failed to state a substantive due-process claim because Plaintiffs did not allege how each defendant interfered with their familial-integrity rights or explain each defendant's relationship to or involvement in the DCFS investigation and removal.
3. Plaintiffs could not assert in their own names a Fourth Amendment claim based on the unreasonable seizure and continued retention of the minor children because Plaintiffs were not the individuals seized.
4. The Second Amended Complaint failed to state claims under § 1983 because it did not allege facts showing each defendant's personal involvement in the asserted constitutional deprivations.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the Second Amended Complaint plausibly stated Fourteenth Amendment procedural due-process claims based on alleged misrepresentations, waiver of adjudication, continued removal, and deprivation of parental rights.
2. Whether the Second Amended Complaint plausibly stated a Fourteenth Amendment substantive due-process claim for interference with familial integrity.
3. Whether Plaintiffs, who were not the individuals seized, could assert a Fourth Amendment claim in their own names for the seizure and continued retention of the minor children.
4. Whether the complaint adequately pleaded each defendant's personal involvement and alleged misrepresentations with the particularity required by Rule 9(b).

Disposition

dismissed