Wojcik v. North Smithfield

• Court: Court of Appeals for the First Circuit
• Decided: February 1, 1996
• Docket: 95-1594
• Status: Published

Opinion

USCA1 Opinion

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT

                                 ____________________



        No. 95-1594



                             DIANE WOJCIK, ETC., ET AL.,



                               Plaintiffs, Appellants,



                                          v.



                          TOWN OF NORTH SMITHFIELD, ET AL.,



                                Defendants, Appellees.



                                 ____________________



                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT



                           FOR THE DISTRICT OF RHODE ISLAND



                    [Hon. Ronald R. Lagueux, U.S. District Judge]
                                             ___________________



                                 ____________________



                                        Before



                                Cyr, Boudin and Stahl,



                                   Circuit Judges.
                                   ______________



                                 ____________________



            Miriam Weizenbaum with whom Amato A. DeLuca and Mandell, DeLuca  &
            _________________           _______________     __________________

        Schwartz, Ltd. were on brief for appellants.
        ______________

            Andrew B.  Prescott with  whom Steven M.  Richard and  Tillinghast
            ___________________            __________________      ___________

        Collins & Graham were on brief for appellees Rhode Island  Rape Crisis
        ________________

        Center, Inc., Marion Marceau and Carl Costanza.

            Kathleen M. Powers with whom Marc DeSisto and DeSisto Law  Offices
            __________________           ____________     ____________________

        were on  brief  for  appellees Town  of  North  Smithfield,  Henrietta

        Delage,  Christine  Davidson,  Lorraine  Nault, Richard  Smith,  Terri

        Leoni, Richard Brady, Charles T. Shunney and Deborah Mancuso.


____________________



                                   February 1, 1996

                                 ____________________



Per Curiam.    In the  district  court, John  and  Diane
                 __________



            Wojcik filed a  32-count complaint including claims  under 42



            U.S.C.    1983 and  under state law for  an array of offenses



            including  kidnapping.  The  defendants included the  Town of



            North Smithfield, the  Rhode Island Rape Crisis  Center, Inc.



            ("Crisis  Center") and a number of school officials, teachers



            and others.   All of these claims derived from two reports of



            possible child  abuse, one  initiated by  a  teacher and  the



            other by a Crisis Center employee teaching a special class in



            school.  The facts are set out at some length in  Chief Judge



            Lagueux's  thorough  opinion  in  Wojcik  v.  Town  of  North
                                              ______      _______________



            Smithfield, 874 F.  Supp. 508 (D.R.I.  1995), and we  confine
            __________



            ourselves to a skeletal summary.



                 The  first incident occurred in March 1990 in connection



            with a program conducted by  the Crisis Center on child abuse



            and  other  topics  for  sixth  grade  children  at  a  North



            Smithfield elementary school.  The Wojciks' daughter Mary was



            a student  in the  class.   Based  on  her reactions  to  the



            program  and what  she  said,  the  Crisis  Center  "teacher"



            advised the  Rhode Island  Department of  Children and  Their



            Families ("DCF") that  she suspected that  Mary might be  the



            victim  of child  abuse  in the  form  of excessive  corporal



            discipline.   A  DCF investigator  visited  the Wojcik  home,



            asked questions, and concluded that no abuse had occurred.


-2-
                                         -2-



The second incident, involving a different teacher and a



            different  Wojcik  child,  occurred almost  a  year  later in



            January 1991.   The child, Katherine Wojcik,  made statements



            to her  fifth grade teacher  that led the teacher  to believe



            that excessive  physical punishment  was  being used  against



            Katherine.  Later, reading journal entries made by Katherine,



            the teacher's concerns grew, and she and the school principal



            jointly  called DCF.   Another DCF investigation  occurred in



            January  1991.    After  talking  to the  Wojciks  and  their



            children,  DCF  closed  this  case  as  well.    The  lawsuit



            followed.



                 In January  1995, the  district  court on  a motion  for



            summary  judgment dismissed a  number of the  Wojciks' claims



            against  various defendants.    874  F. Supp.  at  530.   The



            remaining claims were tried in April and May 1995, but at the



            close of  the plaintiffs'  case, the  district court  granted



            judgment as a matter of law under Fed. R. Civ. P. 50 in favor



            of the remaining  defendants on all  remaining claims.   From



            the  bench Judge Lagueux delivered a substantial oral opinion



            that  is unreported.  These appeals followed challenging both



            the summary judgment and the directed verdict.



                 So  far  as  the  reports to  DCF  were  concerned,  the



            district court concluded  that those  defendants involved  in



            the making of the reports acted reasonably and in good faith.



            As  to   the  section  1983   claims,  these   determinations


-3-
                                         -3-



established  both the  lack  of  a constitutional  violation,



            DeCosta v. Chabot, 59  F.3d 279, 280 (1st Cir. 1995), and the
            _______    ______



            presence  of qualified immunity.   Harlow v.  Fitzgerald, 547
                                               ______     __________



            U.S. 800 (1982).   As for the state claims,  Rhode Island law



            requires  anyone with reasonable cause to suspect child abuse



            to report  it to DCF  and provides that  a good  faith report



            creates immunity to  a civil or criminal suit.   Rhode Island



            General Laws    40-11-3(a), -4.  The district judge found the



            reports  were  protected under  this provision  against state



            claims based on the reports.



                 On  appeal, the Wojciks  argue cogently that  the Crisis



            Center    counselor,   and    later   Katherine's    teacher,



            misunderstood what the children were saying; and, in the case



            of the journal  entries, we are told that  Katherine now says



            that the  entries were  inaccurate.   But state law  required



            reports to be  made if a reasonable suspicion  existed; it is



            DCF's   role--not    the   teacher's--to   carry    out   the



            investigation; and nothing in this record seriously  suggests



            any culpable  mishandling  or malice  in  the filing  of  the



            reports with DCF.  



                 The  only novel  element in the  claims is  the Wojciks'



            charge  that  the  reports aside,  the  Fourth  Amendment was



            violated when school  officials transported Katherine by  car



            from one  school to another  to permit a DCF  investigator to



            talk with her about the  second incident.  The Wojcik sisters


-4-
                                         -4-



were in different  schools, and the school  officials thought



            that   it  would  be   more  comfortable,  in   a  manifestly



            uncomfortable  situation, if the  children were together when



            questioned.   Katherine was upset  by the trip and  went with



            reluctance, if  not actual  resistance.  It  is on  this trip



            that  the   Wojciks  also   based  their  kidnapping,   false



            imprisonment and assault claims.



                 The  Fourth Amendment has been applied to public schools



            officials,  primarily   in  the   investigation  of   student



            misconduct  or  crime.   E.g.,  Vernonia  School  District v.
                                     ____   __________________________



            Alton, 115 S. Ct. 2386 (1995); New Jersey v. T.L.O., 469 U.S.
            _____                          __________    ______



            325  (1985).  The Fourth Amendment, however, protects against



            unreasonable seizures.  Nothing in  the present facts made it
            ____________



            unreasonable for the school, acting in loco parentis, to move
                                                __ ____ ________



            one  of the children from one school to another school in the



            vicinity,  so that both children could be questioned together



            by a  state official following  upon a possible  abuse report



            made by one  of the teachers.   The claim  fails both on  the



            merits and the qualified immunity grounds.  



                 Although  the Wojciks renew  their many state  claims on



            appeal, the principal weight of their brief is on the federal



            claims that we have just discussed.  The state claims made by



            the  Wojciks are  largely answered  by  the district  court's



            determinations  of  reasonableness  and  good  faith.     The



            district  court  discussed  the  state  claims  both  in  its


-5-
                                         -5-



published opinion  and its oral  one, and we have  nothing to



            add to the  discussion.  874 F. Supp. at 524-25.  However the



            state  immunity statute may  be construed, it  clearly covers



            reports made reasonably and in good faith.
                                    ___



                 The district court, of course, was not the  fact finder.



            In  granting summary judgment, its  rulings were based on the



            lack  of  material  facts  in dispute;  and  in  granting the



            directed  verdict, the  court's  rulings  determined that  no



            reasonable jury could find  that the conduct in  question was



            unreasonable or that  the defendants acted in bad  faith.  We



            too think  that the  material facts  were essentially  beyond



            reasonable  dispute.  The Wojciks say that the reasonableness



            of the  defendants' conduct is  a proper issue for  the jury;



            but issues of characterization, like issues of raw  fact, are



            properly resolved by  the court when no reasonable jury could



            find otherwise.



                 We  appreciate the Wojciks'  sense of outrage  that they



            have been subject to two embarrassing inquiries that found no



            merit to any charge of child abuse.   But there is no way for



            the government to protect  children without making  inquiries



            that in many cases  do turn out to be baseless;  so, too, the



            prosecution of crimes  leads in some cases  to acquittals and



            intrusive  tax audits sometimes  produce refunds.   Where the



            government  officials act reasonably and in good faith, there


-6-
                                         -6-



is usually no federal remedy.  If the Wojciks were encouraged



            to think otherwise, their advisors were mistaken.  



                 Official  misconduct  does  occur  and  local  officials



            sometimes  do act  out of  malice or  incompetence.   We have



            ourselves  reversed the district court where we thought there



            was enough suspicion of official misconduct to defeat summary



            judgment or  to require a section  1983 case to  proceed to a



            jury.   Rubinovitz v.  Rogato, 60 F.3d  906 (1st  Cir. 1995).
                    __________     ______



            But here Judge Lagueux was scrupulously  careful:  he granted



            summary  judgment only on certain claims and after exhaustive



            discussion; and on the balance  of the case conducted a trial



            that other  judges might well have deemed  unnecessary to the



            point where he concluded that the claims were hopeless.  With



            that, the Wojciks will have to be content.



                 There  is a  substantial question  whether the  Wojciks'



            appeal from  the  summary judgment  order was  timely, and  a



            motion to  dismiss that appeal  is before us.   The notice of



            appeal  was filed  late  and  the  Crisis  Center  defendants



            contest on appeal  the district court's finding  of excusable



            neglect in allowing the Wojciks' belated motion to extend the



            time to appeal  under Fed.  R. App.  P. 4(a)(4).   This is  a



            difficult question, see Gochis v.  Allstate Ins. Co., 16 F.3d
                                ___ ______     _________________



            12, 15 (1st Cir. 1994), but  we conclude that it need not  be



            addressed   because  the  affirmance   on  the  merits  amply



            vindicates the interests of those defendants.


-7-
                                         -7-



Affirmed.
                 ________


-8-
                                         -8-