Randy Ramer v. Mary Long , 431 F. App'x 73 ( 2011 )

CLD-184 NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
___________
No. 11-1700
___________
RANDY ANDREW RAMER,
Appellant
v.
MARY LONG; RON WELLER; DANIEL SHOOP
____________________________________
On Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Pennsylvania
(D.C. Civil No. 09-cv-01791)
Magistrate Judge: Honorable John E. Jones, III
____________________________________
Submitted for Possible Summary Action
Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 27.4 and I.O.P. 10.6
May 12, 2011
Before: RENDELL, FUENTES and SMITH, Circuit Judges
(Opinion filed: June 10, 2011)
_________
OPINION
_________
PER CURIAM
Randy Andrew Ramer, proceeding pro se, appeals from the District Court’s order
1
granting the defendants’ motion for summary judgment. For the reasons that follow, we
will summarily affirm.
Ramer, who claims that he is “handicapped − mentally retarded,” lives with his
parents, his sister, and his sister’s three minor children. On July 26, 2009, the
Pennsylvania State Police cited Ramer for making sexual gestures towards three
individuals, including a nine year-old girl. The Northumberland County Children and
Youth Services office (“NCCYS”) opened an investigation. During the investigation, two
NCCYS caseworkers, Ronald Weller and Maryann Long, discovered that Ramer had
admitted to molesting his niece in 1999. On August 26, 2009, Weller went to Ramer’s
home. Ramer’s father informed Weller that, pursuant to a safety plan previously put into
place by the NCCYS, Ramer was permitted to reside in the family home provided that he
was not left alone with the minor children. Later, Weller contacted the ChildLine
Registry, a database of sexual offenders, and learned that a report of the sexual abuse in
1999 was classified as “indicated.” 1 Meanwhile, Long contacted the Adult Probation and
Parole Department to gather more information about Ramer. A probation officer told
Long that the charges against Ramer stemming from the July 2009 citation were still
pending and that, in a separate incident, Ramer was alleged to have harassed a woman by
1
An “indicated report” is issued if an investigation determines that “substantial evidence
of the alleged abuse exists” based on “[a]vailable medical evidence,” “[t]he child
protective service investigation,” or “[a]n admission of the acts of abuse by the
perpetrator.” 23 Pa. C.S.A. § 6303(a). A report may also be classified as “founded” or
“unfounded.” 23 Pa. C.S.A. § 6368(c).
2
calling her repeatedly and asking her out on a date. Long also spoke to the police officer
who had cited Ramer.
Weller returned to Ramer’s home on September 2, 2009, to inform the family that
Ramer could not stay there with the minor children while NCCYS conducted its
investigation. After discussing the matter, Ramer’s parents agreed that Ramer could stay
with his uncle, who lived nearby, until the investigation was complete. Ramer’s parents
also signed an Action Plan, pursuant to which Ramer was to have no unsupervised
contact with the minor children in the home. On September 8, 2009, Weller informed
Ramer’s parents that he could to return to their home. The charges related to the July
2009 incident were ultimately dismissed. Ramer also successfully moved to have the
“indicated report” from 1999 expunged from the ChildLine Registry. 2
Ramer filed a complaint in September 2009, which he later amended, against
Weller, Long, and a probation officer, Daniel Shoop. Ramer alleged that the defendants
improperly “forc[ed] [him] out of his residence,” failed to “provide [him] with protection
under [the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”)],” and misidentified him as being
2
The District Court granted the defendants’ motion for a protective order,
directing the parties not to destroy any documentation relating to the “indicated
report” before all possible appeals are exhausted and permitting the defendants to
retain a sealed copy of the report for five years, which “is to be opened only in the
event of civil litigation initiated by [Ramer] or a member of his immediate family
relating to the report.” To the extent that Ramer challenges this protective order,
we conclude that the District Court did not abuse its discretion. Arnold v.
Pennsylvania, Dept. of Transp., 477 F.3d 105, 107-08 (3d Cir. 2007).
3
“on bail bond probation.” The defendants filed a motion to dismiss, which, since it
included exhibits outside the pleadings, was converted to a motion for summary
judgment. A Magistrate Judge recommended that the motion be granted, reasoning that
Weller and Long were entitled to qualified immunity because Ramer failed to
demonstrate that his due process rights had been violated. 3 The District Court adopted
the Magistrate Judge’s recommendation and granted the defendants’ motion for summary
judgment. Ramer appealed.
We have jurisdiction over this appeal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We exercise
plenary review over the District Court’s order granting summary judgment. DeHart v.
Horn, 390 F.3d 262, 267 (3d Cir. 2004). Summary judgment is proper where, viewing the
evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party and drawing all inferences in
favor of that party, there is no genuine issue of material fact and the moving party is
entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a); Kaucher v. Cnty. of Bucks,
455 F.3d 418, 422-23 (3d Cir. 2006). We may affirm the District Court’s grant of
3
The Magistrate Judge also concluded that there was no evidence that Ramer was
discriminated against based on a disability, and that Shoop did not violate Ramer’s
civil rights by disclosing to the NCCYS that he was on bail. We agree with these
assessments. See Chambers v. Sch. Dist. of Phila. Bd. of Educ., 587 F.3d 176, 189
& n.19 (3d Cir. 2009) (noting that to make out a prima facie case of discrimination
under the ADA, the plaintiff must establish that, inter alia, he was either excluded
from participation in or denied the benefits of some public entity’s services,
programs, or activities); Nunez v. Pachman, 578 F.3d 228, 232 (3d Cir. 2009)
(recognizing “established precept that criminal records, including police reports,
indictments, guilty verdicts, and guilty pleas, are inherently public−not
private−documents and are thus beyond the purview of the Due Process Clause.”).
4
summary judgment on any basis supported by the record. Fairview Township v. EPA,
773 F.2d 517, 525 n.15 (3d Cir. 1985).
“Qualified immunity balances two important interests—the need to hold public
officials accountable when they exercise power irresponsibly and the need to shield
officials from harassment, distraction and liability when they perform their duties
reasonably.” Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223, 129 S. Ct. 808, 815 (2009). To
determine whether a government officer is entitled to qualified immunity, we ask (1)
whether the officer violated a constitutional right, and (2) whether the right was clearly
established, such that “it would [have been] clear to a reasonable officer that his conduct
was unlawful in the situation he confronted.” Saucier v. Katz, 533 U.S. 194, 201–02
(2001). “Because qualified immunity is intended to protect officials absent ‘fair warning’
that their conduct violates constitutional guarantees, we examine qualified immunity from
the perspective of the official at the time of the violation.” Burns v. PA Dep’t of Corr., --
F.3d --, 2011 WL 1486075, at *10 (3d Cir. Apr. 20, 2011).
In the context of parents and their children, we have recognized a constitutionally
protected interest in familial integrity. Croft v. Westmoreland Cnty. CYS, 103 F.3d 1123,
1125 (3d Cir. 1997). That interest, however, “does not include a right to remain free from
child abuse investigations.” Id. Consequently, courts “must balance the fundamental
liberty interests of the family unit with the compelling interests of the state in protecting
children from abuse.” Id. A social worker’s decision to separate family constitutes a
5
substantive due process violation only when it “reach[es] a level of gross negligence or
arbitrariness that indeed ‘shocks the conscience.’” Miller v. City of Phila., 174 F.3d 368,
375-76 (3d Cir. 1999).
Nothing about the conduct of Weller or Long satisfies this standard. They initiated
an investigation after receiving a report that Ramer was facing charges for making sexual
gestures toward three individuals, including one minor. During the investigation, Weller
and Long discovered that Ramer previously had admitted to molesting his niece. Weller
contacted the ChildLine Registry and found that that Ramer was the subject of an
“indicated” report, denoting that substantial evidence of the abuse existed. Weller also
visited Ramer’s home and learned that he was living with his sister’s three minor
children. Long was informed by a probation officer that Ramer had been accused of
harassing a woman by repeatedly calling her and asking her out on a date. Based on this
information, Weller and Long reasonably could have believed that the minor children
who lived with Ramer were in danger of abuse. Under these circumstances, we conclude
that Ramer’s substantive due process rights were not violated when he was directed to
leave his home during the pendency of the the NCCYS’s investigation. Croft, 103 F.3d at
1126 (“focus[ing] [on] whether the information available to the defendants at the time
would have created an objectively reasonable suspicion of abuse justifying the degree of
interference with the [parents’] rights.”). Furthermore, Ramer’s procedural due process
claim fails because he has not demonstrated any compensable injury resulting from his
6
six-day stay with his uncle, who lived near the Ramer residence. Berman v. Young, 291
F.3d 976, 985 (7th Cir. 2002) (holding that plaintiffs who raised a procedural due process
claim based on failure to initiate a judicial hearing following removal of a child from the
home “must demonstrate actual damages resulting from the delay in the post-deprivation
hearing.”).
For the foregoing reasons, we conclude that no substantial question is presented by
this appeal. See I.O.P. 10.6. Accordingly, we will summarily affirm the District Court’s
judgment.
7