Link et al v. Arkansas Department of Human Services et al

1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
TEXARKANA DIVISION
MARY LINK and THOMAS LINK 	PLAINTIFF
v. 	Civil No. 4:24-cv-04063
ARKANSAS DEPARTMENT OF
HUMAN SERVICES, et al 	DEFENDANT
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Before the Court is Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss. 	ECF No. 17. 	Plaintiffs have
responded to the Motion. ECF No. 20, 24. This matter has been referred to the undersigned, and
it is now ripe for consideration.
1. 	Background:
Plaintiffs, Mary Link and Thomas Link bring this pro se action pursuant to 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983. ECF No. 3. Plaintiffs make claims against the Arkansas Department of Human Services
(“DHS”) and three DHS employees Jonathan Scott (“Scott”) Alexis Lampkins (“Lampkins”), and
Peter Ferrara (“Ferrara”) individually and in their official capacity as employees of DHS. Id. The
basis of the suit stems from the removal of their three children from their home by DHS.0F
1
Defendants have filed a Motion to Dismiss stating, (1) the Court lacks subject-matter
jurisdiction pursuant to the Rooker-Feldman abstention doctrine; (2) The Eleventh Amendment
bars claims against a state agency; and (3) Qualified immunity protects the individual Defendants
Scott, Lampkins and Ferrara. 	ECF No. 17. 	Defendants seek dismissal of Plaintiffs’ claims
1 A detailed discussion of the facts and procedural background can be found in Link v. Arkansas Department of Human
Services, 680 S.W. 3d 724 (Ark. App. 2023).
Case 4:24-cv-04063-SOH Document 25 Filed 09/06/24 Page 1 of 5 PageID #:
<pageID>

2
under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction and
under Rule 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim.
2. 	Applicable Law:
“Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction, possessing only that power authorized by
Constitution and statute.” Great Lakes Gas Transmission Ltd. P'ship v. Essar Steel Minn. LLC,
843 F.3d 325, 328 (8th Cir. 2016) (citing Gunn v. Minton, 568 U.S. 251, 256 (2013) ). 	Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) allows a defendant to seek dismissal of an action for lack of
subject-matter jurisdiction. Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1). 	Dismissal of a case pursuant to Rule
12(b)(1) may occur through a challenge to the complaint “on its face or on the factual truthfulness
of its averments.” Titus v. Sullivan, 4 F.3d 590, 593 (8th Cir.1993).
When ruling on a motion to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), a
federal district court should accept the allegations contained in the complaint as true. See Young v.
City of St. Charles, 244 F.3d 623, 627 (8th Cir.2001). Further, any reasonable inferences from the
complaint are drawn in favor of the nonmoving party. See id.
A motion to dismiss is properly granted when, based on the plaintiff's own allegations, it
is clear that the defendant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. See Young, 244 F.3d at 627.
“Though pro se complaints are to be construed liberally, see Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 106,
97 S.Ct. 285 (1976), they still must allege sufficient facts to support the claims advanced.” Stone
v. Harry, 364 F.3d 912, 914 (8th Cir.2004). 	To survive a motion to dismiss, a complaint must
contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to “state a claim for relief that is plausible on its
face.” Id. (citing Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007)).
3. 	Discussion:
Defendants argue the Court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction over the Plaintiffs’ claim
pursuant to the Rooker-Feldman doctrine. 	Because Rooker-Feldman implicates a jurisdictional
Case 4:24-cv-04063-SOH Document 25 Filed 09/06/24 Page 2 of 5 PageID #:
<pageID>

3
question, it must be addressed at the outset. Silverman v. Silverman, 338 F.3d 886, 893 (8th Cir.
2003). 	The Rooker-Feldman abstention doctrine precludes a district court from reviewing any
final state court decision on the merits, because “federal jurisdiction to review most state court
judgments is vested exclusively in the United States Supreme Court.” Simes v. Huckabee, 354
F.3d 823, 827 (8th Cir. 2004) (quoting Lemonds v. St. Louis Cnty., 222 F.3d 488, 492 (8th Cir.
2000) ). If a claim is barred under Rooker-Feldman, the federal court lacks subject-matter
jurisdiction and the case must be dismissed.
The Rooker-Feldman doctrine applies only in the limited circumstance in which a party
“seeks to take an appeal of an unfavorable state court decision to a lower federal court.” Lance v.
Dennis, 546 U.S. 459, 466 (2006). The doctrine prevents a state court loser “from seeking what
in substance would be appellate review of the state judgment in a [federal] district court, based on
the losing party's claim that the state judgment itself violates the loser's federal rights.” Johnson v.
De Grandy, 512 U.S. 997, 1005-1006 (1994). Additionally, the doctrine precludes subject-matter
jurisdiction over claims which are “inextricably intertwined” with state court decisions. Simes,
354 F.3d at 827. If a claim is “inextricably intertwined” with a state court decision, a federal court
lacks subject-jurisdiction unless the federal plaintiff was not given a “reasonable opportunity” to
raise their federal claim in the state proceedings. Id.
As previously stated, the basis of Plaintiffs claims stem from the removal of their children
from their home by DHS. Plaintiffs’ children were removed from their home pursuant to an order
of the Circuit Court of Miller County, Arkansas. See Link v. Arkansas Department of Human
Services, 680 S.W. 3d 724 (Ark. App. 2023). The Plaintiff’s separately appealed this state trial
court removal order to Arkansas Court of Appeals. 	Id. 	In this appeal, Mary Link argued DHS
failed to sufficiently prove the children were dependent-neglected and that DHS failed to make
reasonable efforts to prevent the children's removal. Id. Thomas Link also argued DHS failed to
Case 4:24-cv-04063-SOH Document 25 Filed 09/06/24 Page 3 of 5 PageID #:
<pageID>

4
sufficiently prove the children were dependent-neglected. Id. On December 6, 2023, the Arkansas
Court of Appeals affirmed an adjudication order finding that Plaintiffs’ children were dependent-
neglected. Id. In making this finding, the Arkansas Court of Appeals held that (1) the trial court
committed no clear error in finding the children dependent-neglected and (2) there was no clear
error in the trial court finding that DHS made reasonable efforts to prevent removal of the children.
Id. at 732.
“The pertinent question in determining whether a federal district court is precluded under
the Rooker-Feldman doctrine from exercising subject-matter jurisdiction over a claim is whether
the ‘source of the injury’ upon which plaintiff bases his federal claim is the state court
judgment.” In re Cook, 551 F.3d 542, 548 (6 th Cir. 2009). Here, Plaintiffs’ alleged claims arise
directly out of the state court's order removing Plaintiff’s children from their home and the
Arkansas Court of Appeals affirmance of that trial court order.
In their Complaint in this case, Plaintiffs allege there was no evidence the children had
been neglected or abused; that there were other, more reasonable and less intrusive means, to
secure the children’s safety and security without seizing the children; and that Defendants
“continue to hold jurisdiction over the children” depriving the Plaintiffs and the children of familial
relationship without just cause. ECF No. 3. Plaintiff's Complaint expressly seeks to overturn the
state trial court’s decision and the state appellate court’s affirmance of that decision. Once a party
has litigated in state court, the party “cannot circumvent Rooker–Feldman by recasting his or her
lawsuit as a § 1983 action.” Bechtold v. City of Rosemount, 104 F.3d 1062, 1065 (8th Cir. 1997).
This Court lacks jurisdiction over these claims under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine. 1F
2
2 Although this Court recommends dismissal under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, the Court would also point out
that neither the State of Arkansas nor its agencies are subject to suit under § 1983. Will v. Michigan Dept. of State
Police, 491 U.S. 58 (1989). Claims against officers of a state agency are likewise barred because the claims are the
equivalent of a suit against a state agency and Eleventh Amendment immunity precludes such claims. See
also Alsbrook v. City of Maumelle, 184 F.3d 999, 1010 (1999)(Section 1983 suit could not be brought against state
commissioners in their official capacities, because such suit was no different than a suit against the state
Case 4:24-cv-04063-SOH Document 25 Filed 09/06/24 Page 4 of 5 PageID #:
<pageID>

5
4. 	Conclusion:
Based upon the foregoing, the Court recommends Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss (ECF
No. 17) be GRANTED and that the claims of Plaintiffs be DISMISSED with prejudice.
The Parties have fourteen (14) days from receipt of this Report and Recommendation
in which to file written objections pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). The failure to file timely
objections may result in waiver of the right to appeal questions of fact. 	The Parties are
reminded that objections must be both timely and specific to trigger de novo review by the
district court. See Thompson v. Nix, 897 F.2d 356, 357 (8th Cir. 1990).
DATED this 6th day of September 2024.
/s/ 	Barry A. Bryant
HON. BARRY A. BRYANT
U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE
itself). Morstad v. Dep't of Corr. & Rehab., 147 F.3d 741, 743–44 (8th Cir.1998)
(Eleventh Amendment immunity bars § 1983 lawsuit against state agency or state official in official capacity even if
state entity is the moving force behind deprivation of federal rights).
Case 4:24-cv-04063-SOH Document 25 Filed 09/06/24 Page 5 of 5 PageID #:
<pageID>