No. 20-381 in the SUPREME COURT of the UNITED STATES FAMILY SERVICES, Et Al., Petitioners V. Re

No. 20-381 In the SUPREME COURT of the UNITED STATES ________________________________ HAMILTON COUNTY O! AND "AMILY SER#ICES$ Et A%.$ Petitione'( ). OSEPH AND MELISSA SIEFERT Re(*ondents _______________________________ On Petition fo' ,'&t of Ce'tio'-'& to the Un&te+ State( Co.'t of A**e-%( fo' the S&/th C&'0.&t ____________________________ !'&ef &n O**o(&t&on to Petition "o' ,'&t of Ce'tio'-'& __________________________ Te+ L. ,&%%( Counse% of Re0o'+ Atto'ne1 -t L-2 120 E-(t "o.'th Street, S.&te 303 C&n0&nnati$ Ohio 34202 54136721-4707 Te+L,&%%(8-o%.0o9 Counse% fo' Re(*ondents O0to:e' 23$ 2020 I. TABLE OF CONTENTS II. TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ………………………………………..………………………iii III. STATEMENT OF THE CASE …………………………………………………………….1 IV. SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT ………………………………..………………………….3 V. ARGUMENT ………………………………………………….………………………….6 A. ‘Individualized Analysis’ for Qualified Immunity – Not a Basis for Certiorari………………………………………………………..7 1. Defendants Did Not Raise ‘Individualized Analysis’ At The District Court !r !n Their "i#th Circuit Appeal%………………………7 2. Defendants Have Not Identified a Confli t for Certiorari ………………………………………………………………..9 a. Conflict for Certiorari: (enerally …………….)……………………* b. No Intra-Circuit Conflict for Certiorari ………………………...…11 . No Conflict,Different Issues – !ther Cases Raised ‘Individualized Analysis’! ………………………………………. .9 ". No Conflict' Impartial Tribunal Cases%…………………………....13 e. No Conflict' .th and //th Circuits Cited "ame Qualified Immunity 0aw …………………………..…………….16 $. No Conflict' "ixth Cir uit 2n Ban ………….))……………………17 3. 2ven if the County had not 3aived4 "ieferts Alleged Plausible Claims A5ainst the Individual Defendants …………...…17 a. 7oira 3eir ……………………………………………………….……1% b. 2ric 8oun5 …………………………….………………………………19 . Rachel Butler……………………………………………………...…..2& i B. "ixth Circuit Did Not 2stablish ‘Affirmative Duty” to Protect Parental Rights ………………………………………………….….21 1. Defendants 7isstate the "ixth Circuit Holdin5 in the Case – No ‘Affirmative Duty’…………………….)………………………….…:/ 2. Defendants ;iolated ‘Clearly 2stablished’ 0aw ……………………...23 C. Children’s Hospital 2mployees – "tate A tors …………………………………22 1. "ixth Circuit Decision………………………………………………………...27 a. Children’s Raises Nothin5 7ore Than A Perceived 7isapplication !f A Properly "tated Rule !f 0aw……...….27 b. No Certiorari Based on Conflict …………………………………..31 i. No Conflict' 2#tensive-Regulation Cases ……………….32 ii. No Conflict' Involuntary Confinement Cases…………..33 iii. No Conflict' Child-Abuse Reportin5 "tatutes……….…..3' iv. No Conflict' "ixth Cir uit Cases and District Court Cases………………………………………36 2. No "tate 0aw Immunity <or <ederal Due-Pro ess ;iolations……...…36 VI. CONCLUSION ………………………………………………………….……………...3% VII. APPEN*I+ ………………………………………………………..…Sief#,- A../ 10%6 ii TABLE OF AUTHORITIES CASES Adarand Constructors4 In ) v) 7ineta, '31 U.S. 1&32 11&-112 122 S. C-. '112 '1101' 32&&14 ……………………………………………………………..7 Anderson v) Crei5hton4 1%3 U.S. 63'2 636-372 1&7 S. C-. 3&312 3&37 319%74 ……….12 Bakalis v) (olembes=i, 3' F.3" 31%2 322-23 37-5 Cir. 19914 ………………………122 13 Binay v) Bettendorf4 6&1 F.3" 61&2 6'& 36-5 Cir. 2&&%4 ………………………………...1& Blum v) Yarets=y4 1'7 U.S. 9912 1&&22 1&2 S. C-. 27772 27%' 319%24 …………...……..32 Blythe v) " hlievert4 21' F. Supp. 3" 9'9 3N.*. O5io 2&174……………………………36 Boo=er v) 0aPaglia, 617 F#" A..8/ '2&2 '21 36-5 Cir. 2&1'4 ………………………….1& Brent1ood A ademy v) Tennessee "e ondary " hool Assn4 '31 U.S. 2%%2 29'2 121 S. C-. 921 32&&14 ………………………….……………………27 Bro1n v) Newberger, 291 F.3" %9 319- Cir. 2&&24 …………………………………..3'2 36 Burley v) (agac=i,729 F.3" 61&2 619 36-5 Cir. 2&134 ……………………………………17 Champion v) !utloo= Nashville, In )4 3%& F.3" %932 9&2 36-5 Cir. 2&&14 ……………21 Chilton v) 7oser, 671 F.3" 1%6 3'-5 Cir. 2&124 ……………………………………………* Clark v) Rameker, '73 U.S. 1222 131 S. C-. 2212! 32&114 ………………….……92 1&2 31 Clin5man v) Beaver, '11 U.S. '%12 '9%2 12' S. C-. 2&292 2&11012 32&&'4.……………6 Collyer v) Darlin54 9% F.3" 2112 231-33 36-5 Cir. 19964 …………………...……………36 Doe v) Rosenberg4 996 F. Supp. 313 3S.*.N.Y. 199%4. …………………………………3. Dorsey v Barber, '17 F.3" 3%92 399 36-5 Cir. 2&&%4 …………………………………….1& Drimal v) Tai, 7%6 F.3" 2192 226 32:" Cir. 2&1'4 ……………………………………112 13 2idson v) Tennessee Dept) of Children’s "ervi es2 '1& F.3" 6312 63' 36-5 Cir. 2&&74 …………………………………………………...212 2' iii <ilars=y v) Delia2 '66 U.S. 3772 3%32 132 S. C-. 16'7 32&1242…………………….……..27 (andhi v) 6olice Dep’t of Detroit4 717 F.2" 33%2 311 36-5 Cir. 19%1 ………………1& (rant v) City of Pittsburgh4 9% F.3" 1162 123 33" Cir. 19964 …………………112 122 13 Haag v) Cuyaho5a County4 619 F. S6pp. 262 3N.*. O5io 19%'4……………………36 Harlo1 v) <itzgerald4 1'7 U.S. %&&2 1&2 S. C-. 2727 319%24 …………………………….12 Harvey v) Harvey4 919 F.2" 1127 311-5 Cir. 19924 ……………………………………….33 Harville v) ;anderbilt >niversity4 9' F#". A..8/. 7192 726 36-5 Cir. 2&&34 …………..36 Hic=s v) City of 3aton5a, 912 F.2" 7372 717 31&-5 Cir. 19914. ……………....132 112 1' In re: Heffron-Clark4 711 F.3" ''92 '62! 37-5 Cir. 2&134 . ……………………………..…9 ?ac=son v) 7etro) 2dison Co)4 119 U.S. 31'2 3'&2 9' S. C-. 119 319714 . ……………33 @eates v) @oile2 %%3 F.3" 122%2 123%-39 39-5 Cir. 2&1%4 ……………………………….2' @ottmyer v) 7aas4 136 F.3" 6%12 691 :.2 36-5 Cir. 2&&64 …………….232 2'2 262 272 36 0ugar v) 2dmonson !il, 1'7 U.S. 9222 923-212 1&2 S. C-. 27112 2716 319%24 …………………………………………………………....27 7annin5 v) Cotton4 %62 F.3" 6632 66% 3%-5 Cir. 2&174 2………………………………..13 7arie v) Am) Red Cross4 771 F.3" 3112 363 36-5 Cir. 2&114 ………...…………………36 7artin v) City of Broadview Heights4 712 F.3" 9'12 961 36-5 Cir. 2&134 ……………..21 7artinez v) California, 111 U.S. 2772 2%30%12 1&& S. C-. ''32 ''% 319%94 …………62 37 7eadours v) 2rmel, 1%3 F.3" 1172 122 3'-5 Cir. 2&&74 …………………………….122 13 7eyer v) Nebras=a, 262 U.S. 39&2 1&12 13 S. C-. 62' 319234 …………………………..2' 7ueller v) Auker, 7&& F.3" 11%& 39-5 Cir. 2&124 …………………………………….3'2 36 NCAA v) Tarkanian4 1%% U.S. 1792 1912 1&9 S. C-. 1'1 319%%4 . …………………..272 32 Padilla v) @entuc=y4 ''9 U.S. 3'62 13& S. C-. 1173 32&1&4 …………………………….22 iv Parham v) ?)R)4 112 U.S. '%12 6&22 99 S. C-. 2193 319794 ………………………………2' Phifer v) City of Ne1 8ork2 2%9 F.3" 192 61 32:" Cir. 2&&24 …………………………….26 Pino v) Hig5s4 7' F.3" 11612 1166-67 31&-5 Cir. 19964…………………………………...31 Pollard v) City of Columbus4 7%& F.3" 39'2 1&2 36-5 Cir. 2&1'4……………………….1& Prin e v) 7assachusetts4 321 U.S. 1'%2 61 S. C-. 13% 319114 ………………………….2' Quilloin v) 3alcott4 131 U.S. 2162 2''2 9% S. C-. '19 3197%4 …………………………..2' "antos=y v) @ramer2 1'' U.S. 71'2 7'32 1&2 S. C-. 13%% 319%24 …………………..212 2' "mith v) 3illiams-Ash4 '2& F.3" '96 36-5 Cir. 2&&%4. ………………………………….%2 26 "pen er v) 0ee, %61 F.2" 13762 1377 37-5 Cir. 19%94. ……………………………...312 3' "tanley v) Illinois4 1&' U.S. 61'2 6'12 92 S. C-. 12&% 3197242……………………..……...21 "tivers v) Pierce, 71 F.3" 7322 7'&0'1 39-5 Cir. 199'4 ………………………….…...132 11 Thaddeus-X v) Blater, 17' F.3" 37%2 1&32 $:.1% 36-5 Cir. 19994 . …………………...….17 Thomas v) Beth Israel &ospital, 71& F. Supp. 93'2 91& 3S.*.N.Y. 19%94 …………...…36 Tracy v) ""7 Cardinal (lennon Children’s Hos$)4 E.*. M7. N7. 1;1'-CV-1'13 CAS2 2&16 U.S. *is-. LEXIS %99932 a- *23-2' 3=6>? 122 2&164 ……………………..…36 Tro#el v) (ranville2 '3& U.S. '72 6'2 12& S. C-. 2&'1 32&&&4 ……………………….232 2' 3aldrop v) 2vans4 %71 F.2" 1&3&2 1&31 311-5 Cir. 19%94 ………………………….162 17 3is onsin v) Yoder, 1&6 U.S. 2&'2 2322 92 S. C-. 1'26 319724 …………………………2' Youn5 v) ;ega2 '71 F. A..@/ 6%12 691 :.6 36-5 Cir. 2&114. …………………………..2' RULES AND STATUTES O5io R#(. C7"e A 21'1.1213*4334. ……………………………………………………...37 O5io R#(. C7"e A 21'1.1213*43'4………………………………………………………..37 v O5io R#(. C7"e A '1'3.&23B). …...……….……………………………………………...1% 12 U.S.C. A 19%3……………………………………………………………………………...3% U.S. Sup. C-. R. 1&3a)03 4……………………….. 32 12 '2 62 1&2 132 162 172 1%2 212 2%2 36 U.S. Sup. C-. R. 1'324……………………………………………………….112 232 312 362 37 vi III. STATEMENT OF THE CASE Plaintiffs, Joseph and Melissa Siefert have five children. (RE 1, at ¶ 19 (Complaint and Jury "emand#.# Their oldest, Minor Siefert, %as fifteen !ears old %hen nearly all events in this dispute too& place. Id. 'n abo t )ovember *+1,, the Sieferts learned that Minor Siefert %as sufferin- from depression, an.iet!, and suicidal ideations. Id. at ¶ */. Then, on 0 - st 11, *+11, Minor Siefert informed Mr. and Mrs. Siefert that she considered herself to be a trans-ender child. Id. at ¶ *,. 'n )ovember 12, *+11, (ased on their pediatrician3s recommendation, Mr. and Mrs. Siefert too& Minor Siefert to Children3s Hospital. Id. at ¶ 2+. Their purpose %as for Children3s to conduct a ps!cholo-ical evaluation re-ardin- suicidal ideations.

Load more