Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Giroux v. Tommi Young Bull Bear

United States District Court, D. South Dakota, Western Division

March 22, 2017

MADISON GIROUX by her Attorney-in-fact, JENNIFER GIROUX, Plaintiff,
v.
TOMMI YOUNG BULL BEAR, EMT Director, City/County Alcohol and Drug Program, in her individual capacity; BRENDA WOOD, Director City/County Alcohol and Drug Program, in her individual capacity; PENNINGTON COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPUTY PAUL STEVENS, in his individual capacity; and PENNINGTON COUNTY STATE'S ATTORNEY SARAH E. MORRISON, in her individual capacity, Defendants.

          ORDER

          JEFFREY L. VIKEN CHIEF JUDGE

         INTRODUCTION

         Plaintiff Jennifer Giroux, as attorney-in-fact for her daughter, Madison Giroux, filed an amended complaint alleging defendants violated Madison's rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (Docket 6). Defendants filed a motion to dismiss pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6) and Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994). Jennifer Giroux (“Ms. Giroux”), appearing pro se after the court granted her attorney's motion to withdraw, [1] filed a response and supplement to the defendants' motion. (Dockets 23 & 25). For the reasons stated below, defendants' motion is granted in part and denied in part.

         ANALYSIS

         Plaintiff's complaint alleges in three counts that the defendants violated Madison's constitutional rights. (Docket 6). Those claims are summarized as follows:

Count I: Violation of Madison's right of confidentiality in her medical records pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 290ee-3;
Count II: Violation of Madison's Fourth Amendment right against unreasonable search and seizure in a state court criminal prosecution; and
Count III: Violation of Madison's Fourteenth Amendment right of due process in a state court criminal prosecution.

(Docket 6 at pp. 9-11). Ms. Giroux seeks a declaration the defendants violated her daughter's rights and an award of damages, punitive damages and attorney's fees. Id. at pp. 11-12.

         Defendants' motion to dismiss plaintiff's complaint is premised on several grounds. Those are summarized as follows:

1. Ms. Giroux is not a proper party plaintiff under § 1983. (Docket 13 at p. 7);
2. Defendant Sarah E. Morrison is a Pennington County Deputy States Attorney entitled to absolute immunity. Id. at p. 2;
3. As to count I, there is no private right of action under § 290dd-2.[2] Id. at p. 3;
4. As to count I, the remaining defendants are entitled to qualified immunity. Id. at p. 2; and
5. As to counts II and III, those claims are barred by the Heck ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.