From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Trujillo v. Board of County Commissioners

United States Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit
Jul 26, 1985
768 F.2d 1186 (10th Cir. 1985)

Summary

holding that a parental relationship is a constitutionally protected liberty interest

Summary of this case from Lowery v. County of Riley

Opinion

Nos. 83-2320, 83-2379.

July 26, 1985.

Vince D'Angelo, Albuquerque, N.M., for plaintiffs-appellants and cross-appellees.

Jonathan E. Zorn, Albuquerque, N.M., and W. Mark Mowery, Santa Fe, N.M. (Andrew M. Ives, Santa Fe, N.M., with them on brief), for defendants-appellees and cross-appellants.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of New Mexico.

Before SEYMOUR, BREITENSTEIN and McWILLIAMS, Circuit Judges.


Rose Eileen Trujillo and her daughter, Patricia Trujillo, appeal from the dismissal of their action filed under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1982). In their complaint, the Trujillos allege that the wrongful death of their son and brother, Richard Trujillo, while incarcerated at the Santa Fe County Jail, deprived them of their constitutional right of familial association under the First and Fourteenth Amendments. Defendants, various officials and public bodies of both the City and County of Santa Fe, moved to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim or, in the alternative, for summary judgment on the ground that the Trujillos lacked standing. In a second motion for summary judgment, defendants argued that a settlement and release signed by the decedent's former wife and personal representative precluded any claim on behalf of Richard Trujillo. Treating the motion to dismiss as a motion for summary judgment, see Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b), the district court concluded that the Trujillos had not alleged a constitutional right compensable under section 1983. He therefore granted both motions and dismissed the complaint. We affirm the judgment, but on different grounds.

Defendants originally filed a cross-appeal for attorneys fees, but abandoned it at oral argument.

I. [2] STANDING

As a preliminary matter, appellees continue to argue on appeal that the Trujillos lack standing to assert a claim under section 1983. In support of this argument, appellees cite Dohaish v. Tooley, 670 F.2d 934 (10th Cir.), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 826, 74 L.Ed.2d 63 (1982). In Dohaish, the father of an apparent murder victim sued the district attorney for failure to prosecute his son's killer. We affirmed dismissal of the suit both because the district attorney was immune, and because the father had asserted no personal constitutional injury and therefore lacked standing. Because the alleged discrimination was not directed at the father, he had suffered no violation of his own civil rights. Id. at 936. Here, the Trujillos clearly allege an injury to their own personal constitutional rights. These rights in no way derive from the decedent's personal rights, nor do the Trujillos sue on his behalf. Therefore they have standing to assert their own claim under section 1983. See Bell v. City of Milwaukee, 746 F.2d 1205, 1241 (7th Cir. 1984); Logan v. Hollier, 711 F.2d 690, 690-91 (5th Cir. 1983), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 104 S.Ct. 1909, 80 L.Ed.2d 458 (1984); White v. Talboys, 573 F. Supp. 49, 51 (D.Colo. 1983); cf. Jones v. Hildebrant, 432 U.S. 183, 97 S.Ct. 2283, 53 L.Ed.2d 209 (1977) (per curiam); Angola v. Civiletti, 666 F.2d 1, 3 (2d Cir. 1981). Consequently, the sole issue on appeal is whether the Trujillos allege a deprivation of those constitutional rights compensable under section 1983.

The district court did not address this issue.

For the same reason, we do not address the second order granting summary judgment for defendants based on the release signed by the decedent's former wife. The release presents an issue only if the Trujillos allege a derivative right on the decedent's behalf. Cf. Rosa v. Cantrell, 705 F.2d 1208, 1210 (10th Cir. 1982). Nowhere do the Trujillos make such an allegation.

II. [4] THE RIGHT OF FAMILIAL ASSOCIATION

Rose Trujillo and her daughter claim that Richard Trujillo's wrongful death "deprived [them] of their First and Fourteenth Amendment rights to associate with, to enjoy the company of, to have the familial association with, and communication with, Richard Trujillo, deceased." Rec., vol. I, at 3. The Supreme Court has recently clarified the constitutional sources of associational freedoms. In Roberts v. United States Jaycees, ___ U.S. ___, 104 S.Ct. 3244, 82 L.Ed.2d 462 (1984), the Court held that application of the Minnesota Human Rights Act to compel the Jaycees to accept women as regular members did not infringe members' freedom of intimate association or their freedom of expressive association. While the Court anchored the freedom of expressive association in the First Amendment, id. 104 S.Ct. at 3252, it identified the freedom of intimate association as "an intrinsic element of personal liberty," id. at 3251. See also Wise v. Bravo, 666 F.2d 1328, 1336-38 (10th Cir. 1981) (Seymour, J., concurring). Although elements of each associational freedom may coincide in the same claim, see id. at 3249-50, it is the freedom of intimate association which primarily concerns us in this case.

The Trujillos allege a deprivation of their First and Fourteenth Amendment rights. Although this allegation appears to refer to the First Amendment as incorporated to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment, we must read the pleadings in a motion for summary judgment in the light most favorable to the opponent of the motion. McKay v. Hammock, 730 F.2d 1367, 1371 (10th Cir. 1984) (en banc); Otteson v. United States, 622 F.2d 516, 519 (10th Cir. 1980). We read the Trujillo allegation of a right of familial association as an assertion of the liberty interest discussed in Roberts v. United States Jaycees, ___ U.S. ___, 104 S.Ct. 3244, 82 L.Ed.2d 462 (1984). Prior to Jaycees, some courts had interpreted the First Amendment to protect similar intimate relationships. See, e.g., Wilson v. Taylor, 733 F.2d 1539, 1542-44 (11th Cir. 1984) (dating). This explains the allegation as framed by the Trujillos.

In describing this constitutionally protected liberty, the Court recognized that "choices to enter into and maintain certain intimate human relationship must be secured against undue intrusion by the State. . . ." Id. at 3249. Included in that category are "[f]amily relationships, [which] by their nature, involve deep attachments and commitments to the necessarily few other individuals with whom one shares not only a special community of thoughts, experiences, and beliefs but also distinctly personal aspects of one's life." Id. at 3250.

Many courts have recognized liberty interests in familial relationships other than strictly parental ones. See, e.g., Moore v. City of East Cleveland, 431 U.S. 494, 97 S.Ct. 1932, 52 L.Ed.2d 531 (1977) (plurality opinion) (zoning ordinance could not prohibit grandmother from living with her grandsons who were cousins); Smith v. Organization of Foster Families, 431 U.S. 816, 97 S.Ct. 2094, 53 L.Ed.2d 14 (1977) (foster parents have liberty interest in relationship with foster children) (dicta); Wilson v. Taylor, 733 F.2d 1539 (11th Cir. 1984) (interference with dating relationship actionable under § 1983); Rivera v. Marcus, 696 F.2d 1016, 1024-25 (2d Cir. 1982) (half-sister who was also foster mother had protected interest in siblings); Drollinger v. Milligan, 552 F.2d 1220, 1226-27 (7th Cir. 1977) (deprivation of grandfather's relationship with grandchild actionable under § 1983). Moreover, the freedom of intimate association protects associational choice as well as biological connection. See Jaycees, 104 S.Ct. at 3249-51; see generally, Karst, "The Freedom of Intimate Association," 89 Yale L.J. 624 (1980).

In a case similar to our own, the Seventh Circuit recently upheld the right of parents to recover under section 1983 for the wrongful death of an adult child, but rejected the claims of the decedent's brothers and sister. See Bell, 746 F.2d at 1244-47. Noting a lack of specifically analogous cases which would support constitutional protection to the siblings, the Court found most disturbing the lack of a "principled way of limiting such a holding to the immediate family or perhaps even to blood relationships." Id. at 1247.

Although the parental relationship may warrant the greatest degree of protection and require the state to demonstrate a more compelling interest to justify an intrusion on that relationship, we cannot agree that other intimate relationships are unprotected and consequently excluded from the remedy established by section 1983. We therefore hold that Rose and Patricia Trujillo had constitutionally protected interests in their relationship with their son and brother, Richard Trujillo. See Wise, 666 F.2d at 1336-38 (Seymour, J., concurring); Mattis v. Schnarr, 502 F.2d at 588, 593-95 (8th Cir. 1974), appeal following remand vacated on other grounds sub nom., Ashcroft v. Mattis, 431 U.S. 171, 97 S.Ct. 1739, 52 L.Ed.2d 219 (1977); Jones v. McElroy, 429 F. Supp. 848, 851-53 (E.D. Pa. 1977); see also Franz v. United States, 707 F.2d 582, 594-602 (D.C. Cir. 1983); Rivera, 696 F.2d at 1022-26. We now consider what circumstances would yield a deprivation of this associational right so as to create a cause of action under section 1983.

We note that the familial relationships in this case do not form the outer limits of protected intimate relationships. As the Court in Jaycees further explained, "a broad range of human relationships . . . may make greater or lesser claims to constitutional protection . . .," requiring "a careful assessment of where [a particular] relationship's objective characteristics locate it on a spectrum from the most intimate to the most attenuated of personal attachments." 104 S.Ct. at 3251. Those characteristics which would indicate a protected association include smallness, selectivity, and seclusion. Id. at 3250. We need not make such an assessment here, since the relationships at issue clearly fall within the protected range.

III. [10] SECTION 1983

Section 1983 provides an enforcement remedy for one who is deprived under color of state law of "any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution." Although this section does not require a specific state of mind for actionability, see Parratt v. Taylor, 451 U.S. 527, 534, 101 S.Ct. 1908, 1912, 68 L.Ed.2d 420 (1981), a court must examine closely the nature of the constitutional right asserted to determine whether a deprivation of that right requires any particular state of mind, McKay v. Hammock, 730 F.2d 1367, 1373 (10th Cir. 1984) (en banc). For instance, it is well established that deprivations of equal protection require proof of discriminatory intent on the part of the state actor, see, e.g., Washington v. Davis, 426 U.S. 229, 96 S.Ct. 2040, 48 L.Ed.2d 597 (1976), while deprivations under the Eighth Amendment require a showing of deliberate indifference, see, e.g., Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 97 S.Ct. 285, 50 L.Ed.2d 251 (1976). Moreover, some deprivations of First Amendment rights require proof that the state's action was intended to repress an individual's protected speech or association. See, e.g., Mt. Health City School District v. Doyle, 429 U.S. 274, 287, 97 S.Ct. 568, 576, 50 L.Ed.2d 471 (1977); Wilson, 733 F.2d at 1542-43; cf. Angola, 666 F.2d at 4.

We believe that freedom of expressive association provides the most appropriate analogy for freedom of intimate association. As the Court noted in Jaycees, "[t]he intrinsic and instrumental features of constitutionally protected association may, of course, coincide." 104 S.Ct. at 3249. These common features and values may best be safeguarded by similar doctrinal analysis. Despite different constitutional roots, both interests protect interpersonal relationships from unwarranted intrusion by the state. Moreover, most cases that have protected expressive or intimate associational interests have done so when the state has directly interfered with these relationships. See, e.g., Moore, 431 U.S. 494, 97 S.Ct. 1932; Hardwick v. Bowers, 760 F.2d 1202 (11th Cir. 1985); Wilson, 733 F.2d 1539; Rivera, 696 F.2d 1016; Morrison v. Jones, 607 F.2d 1269 (9th Cir. 1979), cert. denied, 445 U.S. 962, 100 S.Ct. 1648, 64 L.Ed.2d 237 (1980); Drollinger, 552 F.2d 1220.

We also observe that liability for the analogous common law tort of interference with the marital relationship requires intent on the part of the defendant. Merely negligent conduct, or even an intentional act directed at another end with an incidental effect on the relationship is not sufficient. The tort must be intentional, directed at the relationship itself. W.L. Prosser W.P. Keeton, Torts, ch. 22, § 124, at 920-21 (5th ed. 1984). Another analogous common law tort, invasion of privacy, see Bell v. City of Milwaukee, 746 F.2d 1205, 1206, 1241 (7th Cir. 1984), also generally requires intentional action by the tortfeasor, see Prosser, ch. 20, § 117, at 854.

Specifically, the freedom of intimate association draws support from the First Amendment values of self-expression and identification. See generally, Karst, "The Freedom of Intimate Association," 89 Yale L.J. 624 (1980). As Professor Karst recognizes, "the First Amendment can provide analogies and perspectives that will be helpful when the courts evaluate substantive due process claims to the freedom of intimate association." Id. at 655. Since the First Amendment requires a court to determine whether the state has acted unjustifiably to prevent the expression of a particular idea in the context of intimate association, we should ask if the state has acted to discourage the expressive aspects of a particular association. See id. at 658-59.

For these reasons, we conclude that an allegation of intent to interfere with a particular relationship protected by the freedom of intimate association is required to state a claim under section 1983. We realize that other courts have not imposed any state of mind requirement to find a deprivation of intimate associational rights. See e.g., Bell, 746 F.2d 1205; Mattis, 502 F.2d 588; Jones, 429 F. Supp. 848. However, their rationale would permit a section 1983 claim by a parent whose child is negligently killed in an automobile accident with a state official, a result expressly disapproved in Parratt, 451 U.S. at 544, 101 S.Ct. at 1917. As the Seventh Circuit recognized in Bell, we must provide a logical stopping place for such claims. 746 F.2d at 1205; see also, Parratt, 451 U.S. at 544, 101 S.Ct. at 1917. Yet, under Bell, a deliberate deprivation of any intimate associational right other than that of a parent, spouse, or child would not be actionable under section 1983. We believe that this result is irreconcilable with the analysis of intimate associational rights in Jaycees. The Court recognized there that these rights extend to intimacy in a variety of contexts. Section 1983 accordingly provides a remedy for improperly motivated state conduct in all of these contexts.

In this case, the Trujillos' complaint does not allege intent on the part of defendants to deprive them of their protected relationship with their son and brother, Richard Trujillo. Although the complaint alleges intent with respect to Richard's rights, this intent may not be transferred to establish intent to deprive his mother and sister of their constitutionally protected rights. The alleged conduct by the State, however improper or unconstitutional with respect to the son, will work an unconstitutional deprivation of the freedom of intimate association only if the conduct was directed at that right. Because the Trujillos did not allege such intent, their complaint was properly dismissed for failure to state a constitutional claim.

The judgment of the district court is affirmed.


Summaries of

Trujillo v. Board of County Commissioners

United States Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit
Jul 26, 1985
768 F.2d 1186 (10th Cir. 1985)

holding that a parental relationship is a constitutionally protected liberty interest

Summary of this case from Lowery v. County of Riley

holding that a mother and daughter could not recover for the victim's alleged wrongful death under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, because they did not allege an intent to interfere with a protected constitutional right

Summary of this case from Kirk v. Winn

holding that a parental relationship is a constitutionally protected liberty interest

Summary of this case from Payne v. Wilder

holding that "an allegation of intent to interfere with a particular relationship protected by the freedom of intimate association is required to state a claim under section 1983"

Summary of this case from Gray-Davis v. Rigby

holding that, “[a]lthough the complaint alleges intent with respect to [the deceased inmate's] rights, this intent may not be transferred to establish intent to deprive his mother and sister of their constitutionally protected rights”

Summary of this case from Stewart v. City of Prairie Vill.

holding that "an allegation of intent to interfere with a particular relationship protected by the freedom of intimate association is required to state a claim under section 1983"

Summary of this case from Campos v. Weissman

holding that mother and sister had constitutionally protected interest in relationship with son and brother who died in jail, but adding that allegation of specific intent to interfere with that relationship was required to state a claim under § 1983

Summary of this case from McIlwain v. Prince William Hospital

finding that mother had a constitutionally protected liberty interest in her relationship with her adult son but dismissing claim against government officials allegedly responsible for son's death where there was no allegation of the officials' intent to interfere with the parent-adult child relationship

Summary of this case from Ghadami v. U.S. Dep't of Homeland Sec.

finding that mother had a constitutionally protected liberty interest in her relationship with her adult son, but dismissing claim against government officials allegedly responsible for son's death where there was no allegation of the officials' intent to interfere with the parent-adult child relationship

Summary of this case from Al-Aulaqi v. Obama

finding sister had actionable right under § 1983 for deprivation of right to intimate association with brother who died while incarcerated provided the deprivation was intentional

Summary of this case from Estates of Yaron Ungar v. Palestinian Authority

concluding "that an allegation of intent to interfere with a particular relationship protected by the freedom of intimate association is required to state a claim" and holding that plaintiffs mother and sister failed to allege intent on defendants' part to deprive them of their protected relationship with their son/brother

Summary of this case from Finley v. City of Colby

granting summary judgment against plaintiffs on their Section 1983 claims asserting deprivation of their rights to familial association because the record did not contain evidence of an intent to deprive plaintiffs of their relationship with their son and brother

Summary of this case from Murphy v. Bitsoih

rejecting wrongful death claim by mother and daughter of victim where no showing that jailers directed activity toward familial relationship with intent to interfere with that relationship

Summary of this case from Bruner-McMahon v. Hinshaw

recognizing a constitutionally protected liberty interest in relationship with adult son

Summary of this case from Sinclair v. City of Seattle

recognizing constitutional claims by parents and siblings, but only when defendant intended to destroy constitutionally protected relationship

Summary of this case from Carringer v. Rodgers

recognizing a cause of action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for state interference with intimate familial relationships

Summary of this case from Spencer v. Casavilla

recognizing right but only if alleged deprivation is intentional

Summary of this case from Cortes-Quinones v. Jimenez-Nettleship

recognizing constitutional claims by parents and siblings, but only when defendant intended to destroy constitutionally protected relationship

Summary of this case from Waites v. Limestone Corr. Facility

recognizing right to familial association, but affirming dismissal of claim based on wrongful death of plaintiffs' son and brother while incarcerated in jail for failure to allege intent to interfere with the particular relationship

Summary of this case from Thomas v. Kaven

recognizing a parent's constitutionally protected interest with her adult son, but under the First Amendment's right of association

Summary of this case from Evans v. Pitt Cnty. Dep't of Soc. Servs.

recognizing constitutional claims by parents and siblings, but only when defendant intended to destroy constitutionally protected relationship

Summary of this case from Rentz v. Spokane County

recognizing interest where direct effort to interfere with relationship

Summary of this case from Braillard v. Maricopa County

recognizing an interest where there has been a direct effort to interfere with the relationship

Summary of this case from Struck v. Cook Cty. Public Guardian

In Trujillo v. Board of County Commissioners of Santa Fe, 768 F.2d 1186, 1190 (10th Cir. 1985), we "conclude[d] that an allegation of intent to interfere with a particular relationship protected by the freedom of intimate association is required to state a claim under section 1983."

Summary of this case from Muniz-Savage v. Addison

In Trujillo, 768 F.2d at 1190, we "conclude[d] that an allegation of intent to interfere with a particular relationship protected by the freedom of intimate association is required to state a claim under section 1983."

Summary of this case from Es. of Herring v. Colorado Springs
Case details for

Trujillo v. Board of County Commissioners

Case Details

Full title:ROSE EILEEN TRUJILLO AND PATRICIA TRUJILLO, PLAINTIFFS-APPELLANTS AND…

Court:United States Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit

Date published: Jul 26, 1985

Citations

768 F.2d 1186 (10th Cir. 1985)

Citing Cases

Rees v. Office of Children & Youth

On the defendants' appeal from the district court';s denial of qualified immunity, the Tenth Circuit Court of…

Murphy v. Bitsoih

Defendants characterize these allegations as a claim for loss of familial association, and Plaintiffs do not…