David Hutchinson v. Rebecca Nale, Kimberely Byrum, Jamie Johnson, Crystal Howell, and Aaron Simpson

Summary

The United States District Court for the Southern District of Indiana denied defendants' Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss David Hutchinson's 42 U.S.C. § 1983 due process action. The court held that Hutchinson plausibly alleged a stigma-plus deprivation of occupational liberty based on his placement on Indiana's Child Protective Index and the resulting alleged impairment of his ability to pursue a law enforcement career.

Holdings

1. The amended complaint plausibly alleged that the Defendants' stigmatizing child-abuse substantiation and Hutchinson's placement on the Child Protective Index caused a tangible loss of employment opportunities by making it virtually impossible for him to pursue a law-enforcement career.
2. Hutchinson's pursuit and successful use of the DCS administrative appeal did not foreclose his independent § 1983 claim.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Hutchinson plausibly alleged a protected occupational liberty interest under a stigma-plus theory of procedural due process.
2. Whether the availability and successful use of an administrative appeal foreclosed Hutchinson's § 1983 claim.
3. Whether the amended complaint stated a plausible claim under Rule 12(b)(6).

Disposition

other