Background
Dion Kirk Humphrey filed a pro se action in the United States District Court for the District of Alaska alleging violations of the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments. He claimed judicial deception violated his right to family integrity and sued private entities and individuals including Renee Straube, Juliette Rosado, the Alaska Office of Childrens Services, and North Star Behavioral Health. The district court dismissed the claims against all defendants for failure to state a claim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure twelve point B six.
The court’s reasoning
The Ninth Circuit reviewed the dismissal de novo. The panel held that the district court properly dismissed claims against North Star Behavioral Health and Juliette Rosado because Humphrey failed to allege facts sufficient to show these defendants were acting under color of state law. The panel also held the district court properly dismissed claims against Renee Straube because Humphrey failed to allege facts sufficient to show she violated his right to familial association by judicial deception. The court noted that a plaintiff must allege a misrepresentation or omission made deliberately or with reckless disregard for the truth that was material to the judicial decision. The court declined to consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised in the opening brief.
What it means going forward
The decision reinforces the requirement that plaintiffs in Section nineteen eighty-three actions must plead specific facts showing private actors acted under color of state law. It also clarifies the high bar for alleging judicial deception, requiring proof of material misrepresentations made with deliberate or reckless disregard for the truth.