KEVIN LIPMAN, ADMINISTRATOR OF THE ESTATE OF TA’NAEJAH MCCLOUD, DECEASED; SHABRINA MCCLOUD v. ARMOND D. BUDISH, IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS CUYAHOGA COUNTY EXECUTIVE; CUYAHOGA COUNTY CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES; KRISTINA QUINT; ADA JACKSON; MARQUETESE BETTS - Articles

All Content

KEVIN LIPMAN, ADMINISTRATOR OF THE ESTATE OF TA’NAEJAH MCCLOUD, DECEASED; SHABRINA MCCLOUD v. ARMOND D. BUDISH, IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS CUYAHOGA COUNTY EXECUTIVE; CUYAHOGA COUNTY CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES; KRISTINA QUINT; ADA JACKSON; MARQUETESE BETTS

Posted by: Karen Belcher on Sep 4, 2020

Court: 6th Circuit Court (Published Opinions)

Attorneys 1: ARGUED: Jay Paul Deratany, THE DERATANY FIRM, Chicago, Illinois, for Appellants.

Attorneys 2: ARGUED: Robert F. Cathcart, CUYAHOGA COUNTY, Cleveland, Ohio, for Appellees.

Attorneys 3: ON BRIEF: Jay Paul Deratany, Roosevelt Allen III, THE DERATANY FIRM, Chicago, Illinois, for Appellants.

Attorneys 4: ON BRIEF: Robert F. Cathcart, CUYAHOGA COUNTY, Cleveland, Ohio, for Appellees.

Judge(s): COLE, Chief Judge; CLAY and NALBANDIAN, Circuit Judges

Court Appealed: United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio at Cleveland

CLAY, Circuit Judge. Plaintiffs in this case are the legal custodian and estate representative of Ta’Naejah McCloud, who was born in 2011. Ta’Naejah was in the custody of her biological mother, Tequila Crump, who severely abused her, including through repeated burnings and beatings. Ta’Naejah was hospitalized and interviewed by Cuyahoga County caseworkers, but ultimately was returned to Crump’s custody. Throughout the next year, the county received further reports of abuse and interviewed Ta’Naejah several more times, but never acted to remove her from the household. The abuse eventually resulted in Ta’Naejah’s death.

While several of Plaintiffs’ federal claims are foreclosed by the Supreme Court’s and this Court’s case law, Plaintiffs also allege that the state affirmatively increased Ta’Naejah’s risk of harm by repeatedly interviewing her about her abuse in the presence of her alleged abusers, in violation of state regulations. Because these allegations plausibly allege a claim under the state-created danger doctrine, the district court erred by dismissing Plaintiffs’ complaint. Accordingly, we affirm in part and reverse in part the district court’s order dismissing Plaintiffs’ federal claims, vacate the dismissal of Plaintiffs’ state-law claims, vacate the order striking Plaintiffs’ post-judgment motion, and remand this case for further proceedings. We also deny Defendants’ motion to seal.

Attachments: