137 Nev., Advance Opinion 51
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA
STEVE EGGLESTON, No. 80838
Appellant,
vs.
GEORGINA STUART; CLARK
COUNTY, NEVADA; LISA CALLAHAN;
DUD
AND BRIAN CALLAHAN, SEP 2 3 2021
Respondents. EU7 ‘11,
CLERY OF' Rr
BY
C IIEF DEPUTY CLERK
Appeal from a district court order dismissing an action raising
federal civil rights and state law tort claims for failure to exhaust
administrative remedies. Eighth Judicial District Court, Clark County;
Douglas Smith, Judge.
Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.
McFarling Law Group and Emily M. McFarling, Las Vegas,
for Appellant.
Olson Cannon Gormley & Stoberski and Felicia Galati, Las Vegas,
for Respondents Clark County, Nevada, and Georgina Stuart.
Brian Callahan, New Lenox, Illinois,
Pro Se.
Lisa Callahan, New Lenox, Illinois,
Pro Se.
BEFORE THE SUPREME COURT, PARRAGUIRRE, STIGLICH, and
SILVER, JJ.
24.4r1
OPINION
By the Court, SILVER, J.:
Appellant Steve Eggleston filed a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 civil rights
claim, as well as various state law tort claims, in the district court. In his
complaint, Eggleston alleged that respondent Georgina Stuart, who is
employed by the Clark County Department of Family Services (DFS), and
two police officers forced him to sign a temporary guardianship over his two
minor children under threat of never seeing his children again. The papers
gave temporary guardianship to the children's maternal aunt, Lisa
Callahan, who thereafter took the children to another state. One month
after Eggleston signed the papers, DFS made a finding of child
maltreatment against Eggleston, which he administratively appealed. But
Eggleston delayed the administrative hearing before a fair hearing officer
and, in the meantime, filed the aforementioned civil rights and tort claims
in the district court. The district court determined that punitive damages
were not available and dismissed Eggleston's request for such damages
against Stuart and thereafter dismissed Eggleston's § 1983 and state law
tort claims for failure to exhaust his administrative remedies. Eggleston
then appealed.
In this opinion, we conclude that, consistent with Patsy v. Board
of Regents, 457 U.S. 496 (1982), a party generally is not required to exhaust
administrative remedies before filing a § 1983 civil rights claim. We also
acknowledge that Zinermon v. Burch, 494 U.S. 113 (1990), provides a
limited exception to Patsy's general rule for procedural due process claims.
Here, we conclude that the district court erred by requiring Eggleston to
administratively exhaust all potential remedies in his DFS case before
bringing his § 1983 and state law tort claims, because, while related, the
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
2
<C” I947A .940.•
cases ultimately seek different remedies for different wrongs. The district
court also erred by finding that Eggleston's § 1983 claim was solely a
procedural due process claim subject to the exhaustion doctrine because
Eggleston actually presented a substantive due process claim. Therefore,
the district court improperly dismissed Eggleston's § 1983 and state law tort
claims. We also conclude that the district court erred by determining that
punitive damages were unavailable against Stuart at this point in the
litigation.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Clark County and Stuart became involved with Eggleston after
the mother of Eggleston's two minor children, Laura Battistella, allegedly
expressed suicidal ideation in December 2014 and emergency services were
summoned. As a result of Stuart's involvement, Eggleston asserts, he and
Battistella agreed to participate in a DFS program designed to help increase
the well-being of the entire family, which also included two other minor
children of Battistella. In addition, Battistella's sister, Lisa Callahan,
visited from the Chicago area to help with childcare and to support
Battistella.
Eggleston alleges that on January 6, 2015, Stuart arrived at
Eggleston and Battistella's home with two armed police officers, Lisa
Callahan, and others. According to Eggleston, Stuart ordered Eggleston
and Battistella to immediately sign temporary guardianship of the children
over to Lisa Callahan, threatening that the police would take their children
into custody and they would never see their children again if they did not
comply. Under duress, Eggleston claims, he and Battistella signed the
prepared temporary guardianship papers in front of a notary. Lisa
Callahan thereafter took the children out of state, allegedly to Illinois to
SUPREME CouRT
OF
NEVADA
3
Koi 194Th •MfOX>
hide them from Eggleston.1 Eggleston alleges that he has not seen his
children since this event, for over five years now.
Thereafter, in early February, DFS made a finding of child
maltreatment against Eggleston.2 Eggleston appealed the finding to the
DFS appeals unit, and the appeals unit manager upheld the finding.
Eggleston then requested a fair hearing to administratively appeal that
decision (the DFS case), as set forth in the relevant statutes. At Eggleston's
request, the fair hearing was initially set for August 1, 2017, but Eggleston
thereafter requested three continuances and stopped communicating with
DFS to coordinate a date for that hearing.
At no point did DFS move to terminate Eggleston's parental
rights in Nevada. After Lisa Callahan fled to Illinois, Eggleston alleges he
did not know the whereabouts of Lisa and his children for years.
Unbeknownst to Eggleston, Lisa Callahan petitioned for permanent
guardianship in an Illinois court. Eggleston then moved to terminate the
guardianship in Illinois.
Over one year after he requested a fair hearing in the DFS case,
Eggleston filed a complaint against Georgina Stuart, DFS, Child Support
Services, Clark County, Lisa Callahan, and Brian Callahan, alleging civil
rights and tort law violations. Clark County and Stuart moved to dismiss
the claims, arguing that Eggleston failed to state a claim upon which relief
can be granted and that punitive damages were not permitted pursuant to
NRS 41.035(1), which precludes punitive damages awards against
Lisa Callahan and her husband Brian Callahan are named as
1
respondents in this appeal, but neither filed an answering brief.
Specifically, DFS found physical injury, neglect, and plausible risk of
2
physical injury as to four minor children.
SUPREME COURT
oç
NEVADA
(0) 0)47A 46D.
4
employees of political subdivisions acting in the scope of employment. The
district court granted the motion, concluding that some of the claims were
deficient and that punitive damages were unavailable, but leave to amend
was granted.
Eggleston filed a first amended complaint, again claiming
violation of his civil rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Clark County and
Stuart; conspiracy to violate his civil rights and intentional infliction of
emotional distress (IIED) against Clark County, Stuart, and the Callahans;
and defamation against Clark County, Stuart, and Lisa Callahan. Clark
County and Stuart moved to dismiss Eggleston's first amended complaint
under NRCP 12(b)(5) based on Eggleston's failure to exhaust his
administrative remedies in his DFS case. Clark County and Stuart argued
that because Eggleston's fair hearing was still pending, the exhaustion of
administrative remedies doctrine barred Eggleston's civil complaint.
Eggleston opposed the motion, but the district court dismissed his claims,
finding that Eggleston initiated an administrative appeals process in the
DFS case that was still pending when he filed his first amended complaint
in the district court. The court further found that Eggleston's civil rights
claims were based on procedural due process violations and thus excepted
from the general rule that § 1983 claims do not require exhaustion.
Accordingly, the district court found that Eggleston must first exhaust his
administrative remedies in the DFS case and dismissed his § 1983 civil
rights and state law tort claims on that basis. Eggleston moved for
reconsideration, which was denied.3
3After the order dismissing the action was entered, the case was
reassigned to Judge Cristina D. Silva, who decided the motion for
reconsideration.
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
5
tO) 1947A
Eggleston appeals, arguing the exhaustion doctrine does not
apply here and, therefore, the district court improperly dismissed his § 1983
and state law tort claims. He further argues the district court improperly
dismissed his request for punitive damages against Stuart.
DISCUSSION
Standard of review
A dismissal for failure to state a claim pursuant to NRCP
12(b)(5) is reviewed de novo. Buzz Stew, LLC v. City of N. Las Vegas, 124
Nev. 224, 227-28,
181 P.3d 670, 672 (2008). A decision to dismiss a
complaint under NRCP 12(b)(5) is rigorously reviewed on appeal with all
alleged facts in the complaint presumed true and all inferences drawn in
favor of the complainant. Id.
Eggleston was not required to exhaust his administrative remedies before
filing a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 civil rights claim in the district court
Eggleston argues that the district court erred by dismissing his
42 U.S.C. § 1983 civil rights claim because under Patsy v. Board of Regents,
457 U.S. 496 (1982), he was not required to exhaust the administrative
remedies in his DFS case before filing a § 19834 civil rights claim in the
district court. Clark County and Stuart counter that Eggleston must first
exhaust the administrative remedies in his DFS case under the exhaustion
4Egg1eston refers to his two civil rights claims as § 1983 claims.
However, his conspiracy claim actually falls under 42 U.S.C. § 1985.
Eggleston fails to provide any authority or argument regarding § 1985 or
demonstrate that the exception to the exhaustion doctrine for § 1983 claims
applies to § 1985 claims. Therefore, his arguments regarding this claim are
waived, and we affirm the dismissal of Eggleston's § 1985 conspiracy claim.
Powell v. Liberty Mut. Fire Ins. Co. , 127 Nev. 156, 161 n.3,
252 P.3d 668,
672 n.3 (2011) (noting that arguments not raised in the opening brief are
deemed waived).
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
6
10) l941A 40).
doctrine because his § 1983 claim is a procedural due process claim, which
is an exception to Patsy under Zinermon v. Burch, 494 U.S. 113 (1990).5 We
conclude that Eggleston was not required to exhaust his administrative
remedies before bringing his § 1983 claim in the district court.
"Ordinarily, before availing oneself of district court relief from
an agency decision, one must first exhaust available administrative
remedies." Malecon Tobacco, LLC v. State, Dep't of Taxation, 118 Nev. 837,
839,
59 P.3d 474, 475-76 (2002). “[F]ailure to do so renders the controversy
nonjusticiable." Allstate Ins. Co. v. Thorpe, 123 Nev. 565, 571,
170 P.3d 989,
993 (2007). "The exhaustion doctrine gives administrative agencies an
opportunity to correct mistakes and conserves judicial resources, so its
purpose is valuable; requiring exhaustion of administrative remedies often
resolves disputes without the need for judicial involvement." Id. at 571-72,
170 P.3d at 993-94.
However, a party is generally not required to exhaust state
administrative remedies before bringing a civil rights claim in federal or
state court under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.6 Patsy,
457 U.S. at 516; Felder v. Casey,
5We have considered Stuart's arguments regarding the finality
doctrine, NRS 432B.317, and NRS 233B.130, and in light of our decision
here, we conclude those arguments are without merit. We also do not
address Stuart's argument that the district court properly denied
Eggleston's NRCP 56(f) request for discovery because Eggleston does not
dispute this ruling on appeal.
642 U.S.C. § 1983 reads as follows:
Every person who, under color of any statute,
ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any
State or Territory or the District of Columbia,
subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the
United States or other person within the
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
7
1.047,,, 40115)10
487 U.S. 131, 146-47 (1988). Section 1983s purpose is "to interpose the
federal courts between the States and the people, as guardians of the
peoples federal rights—to protect the people from unconstitutional action
under color of state law." Patsy, 457 U.S. at 503 (internal quotation marks
omitted). "[O]verlapping state remedies are generally irrelevant to the
question of the existence of a cause of action under § 1983," Zinermon, 494
U.S. at 124, because "Mlle federal remedy is supplementary to the state
remedy, and the latter need not be first sought and refused before the
federal one is invoked." Monroe v. Pape, 365 U.S. 167, 183 (1961), overruled
in part on other grounds by Monell v. N.Y. City Dep't of Soc. Servs., 436 U.S.
658 (1978).
This general rule applies to § 1983 claims for fundamental
rights violations or substantive due process claims. Zinermon, 494 U.S. at
125. "Substantive due process guarantees that no person shall be deprived
of life, liberty or property for arbitrary reasons." In re Guardianship of L.S.
& H.S., 120 Nev. 157, 166,
87 P.3d 521, 527 (2004) (internal quotation
marks omitted). Substantive due process protects certain individual
liberties against arbitrary government deprivation regardless of the
fairness of the state's procedure. 16C C.J.S. Constitutional Law § 1884
(2021). It does not protect against all government infringement, but is
"reserved for the most egregious governmental abuses against liberty or
property rights, abuses that shock the conscience or otherwise offend
judicial notions of fairness and that are offensive to human dignity." Id.
jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights,
privileges, or immunities secured by the
Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party
injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other
proper proceeding for redress . . . .
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
8
ins i,+47A QifScca
The exhaustion doctrine is not a bar to § 1983 substantive due process
claims because "the constitutional violation actionable under § 1983 is
complete when the wrongful action is taken." Zinermon, 494 U.S. at 125.
The same cannot be said for procedural due process claims,
which are an exception to the general rule. Id. ("[T]he existence of state
remedies is relevant" to a § 1983 claim "brought for a violation of procedural
due process."). Procedural due process rules protect persons from
deprivations of life, liberty, or property that are mistaken or unjustified.
16C C.J.S. Constitutional Law § 1884 (2021). Procedural due process claims
arise where the State interferes with a liberty or property interest and the
States procedure was constitutionally insufficient. Malfitano v. Cty. of
Storey, 133 Nev. 276, 282,
396 P.3d 815, 819 (2017). In such claims, State
deprivation "of a constitutionally protected interest in life, liberty, or
property is not in itself unconstitutional; what is unconstitutional is the
deprivation of such an interest without due process of law." Zinermon, 494
U.S. at 125 (internal quotation marks omitted). Therefore, "Mlle
constitutional violation actionable under § 1983 is not complete when the
deprivation occurs; it is not complete unless and until the State fails to
provide due process." Id. at 126.
Here, the district court correctly stated that a § 1983 claim for
a violation of procedural due process will not stand until the State fails to
provide due process. But as set forth in more detail below, we conclude the
district court incorrectly applied that standard to Eggleston's § 1983 claim
in this case.
First, we conclude the district court erroneously determined
Eggleston's due process claim was a procedural one. Although Eggleston
complains in part that Clark County and Stuart failed to provide him with
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEYADA
9
I'M 1947A .1e2A0.,
notice of the allegations against him and an opportunity to respond in
rebuttal, at its core, Eggleston's complaint presents a substantive due
process claim for violation of the fundamental right to parent his children.
The fundamental right to "bring up children" is encompassed within the
right to liberty, a core guarantee protected by the Due Process Clause of the
Fourteenth Amendment. Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390, 399 (1923); see
also In re L.S., 120 Nev. at 166,
87 P.3d at 527 (addressing a parent's
substantive due process rights). Indeed, "[t] he liberty interest . . . of
parents in the care, custody, and control of their children[ ] is perhaps the
oldest of the fundamental liberty interests recognized by this Court." Troxel
v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57, 65 (2000). Here, not only is Eggleston claiming
that he was not afforded adequate process protecting against the mistaken
or unjustified loss of that right, but he is alleging that Clark County and
Stuart arbitrarily and capriciously interfered with this right when, without
cause, they forced him under duress to sign temporary guardianship papers
leading to the unwarranted removal of his children from his care.7
Eggleston further alleges that he thereafter did not have contact with his
children for over five years, and the woman who fled the state with his
children was able to obtain guardianship over his children in Illinois.
Moreover, he claims, the children's forced removal from his home was part
of a design to enhance the county budget and for personal gain. Taking
Eggleston's allegations as true, as we must in the context of a motion to
dismiss, the State's actions "shock the conscience by removing the
Furthermore, the record on appeal demonstrates that Clark County
7
and Stuart focused their defense on the exhaustion of administrative
remedies and did not provide any contradicting facts as to what happened
when Eggleston signed the temporary guardianship below.
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
10
CO) 1947A .46DN.
possibility of reunification and by violating Eggleston's fundamental right
to raise his children. The constitutional violation was complete when the
State forced Eggleston to sign the temporary guardianship papers, and thus
this claim is fundamentally a substantive due process one exempt from the
exhaustion doctrine.
Moreover, while Stuart argues, and the district court found,
that Eggleston's § 1983 claim was an extension of his DFS case, the two
cases are separate from each other, as they arise from two separate factual
circumstances. Eggleston's allegations for his § 1983 claim arise from an
incident that occurred before DFS made its finding of child maltreatment,
while the DFS proceedings concern only that finding. And there is nothing
in the record to suggest that DFS's finding of child maltreatment arose from
the same set of facts underlying Eggleston's allegations that DFS coerced
Eggleston into signing away his guardianship rights at the time that DFS
removed the children frorn Eggleston. Thus, the district court improperly
linked the case before it with the DFS case.
We further note that because Eggleston alleges DFS forced him
to sign temporary guardianship papers without first implementing any
process, Eggleston's allegations arise from a situation for which there were
no administrative remedies available to redress the harm of losing his
children. Importantly, if the State had instead petitioned the district court
for temporary guardianship over Eggleston's children, it would have given
Eggleston the chance to appear and oppose the temporary guardianship in
open court. Thus, in that situation, due process would have been available
to Eggleston, which he would have been required to pursue before raising
his § 1983 claim. But here, Eggleston alleges that he was coerced by the
government to sign temporary guardianship papers releasing his children
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
11
Iv47A
to the Callahans care and he has never had an opportunity to see them
again in over five years. Therefore, his § 1983 claim seeks to redress the
harm stemming from that particular event, whereas even if Eggleston
prevailed in the DFS case by proving the abuse allegations were
unsubstantiated, his only remedy is that his name would be removed from
the DFS's Central Registry. Accordingly, there is no relevant
administrative remedy available to Eggleston stemming from these unique
circumstances.
In sum, the district court improperly linked the DFS case to
Eggleston's complaint, which, at its core, presents a substantive due process
claim, and there is no relevant administrative remedy for Eggleston to
exhaust. Therefore, we conclude that the district court erred by dismissing8
Eggleston's § 1983 civil rights claim for failure to exhaust administrative
remedies.9
The district court erred by dismissing Eggleston's state law tort claims
Eggleston next argues that the district court erred by
dismissing his state tort I1ED and defamation claims based on the failure
to exhaust administrative remedies. Stuart responds that because
Eggleston's state law tort claims are related to DFS's finding of child
maltreatment, he must first exhaust his administrative remedies.
81n light of our decision, the parties' arguments regarding NRCP 12
and the affidavit are moot, and we need not consider them. See Edwards v.
City of Reno, 45 Nev. 135, 143,
198 P. 1090, 1092 (1921) ("Appellate courts
do not give opinions on moot questions or abstract propositions.").
9We recognize the complaint includes language that appears to
reference DFS's finding of child maltreatment and administrative remedies,
suggesting the claim may be an administrative one, but we conclude the
heart of the complaint is a § 1983 action. The district court may address
the extraneous language upon remand.
SUPREME COURT
Of
NEVADA
12
tv47A .62A.
Eggleston's state law tort claims do not implicate any
administrative process. "Any preliminary, procedural or intermediate act
or ruling by an agency in a contested case is reviewable if review of the final
decision of the agency would not provide an adequate remedy." NRS
233B.130(1). NRS 4328.317(1) provides for the administrative appeal of
the substantiation of the agency's report of abuse or neglect and "the
agency's intention to place the person's name in the Central Registry."
Where an agency is "without authority to award damages caused by
defamation[J . . . the doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies is
not applicable." Ambassador Ins. Corp. v. Feldman, 95 Nev. 538, 539,
598
P.2d 630, 631 (1979).
Here, the district court dismissed all of Eggleston's tort claims
based on failure to exhaust administrative remedies. But to the extent that
Eggleston's IIED and defamation claims rest on his allegations that he was
forced to sign a temporary guardianship over his children, exhaustion is not
required because, as explained above, these allegations do not arise from an
administrative process. Moreover, the exhaustion doctrine does not
preclude Eggleston's defamation claim because the agency is unable to
grant the damages he seeks. See NRS 233B.130(1); Ambassador Ins. Corp.,
95 Nev. at 539,
598 P.2d at 631. Finally, the exhaustion doctrine does not
apply to the claims against the Callahans because they are not an
administrative agency. See Benson v. State Engineer, 131 Nev. 772, 777,
358 P.3d 221, 224 ("Ordinarily, before availing oneself of district court relief
from an agency decision, one must first exhaust administrative remedies.")
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
13
(01 1947A
(emphasis added). Accordingly, we conclude the district court improperly
dismissed these claims.°
The district court erred by disallowing punitive damages against Stuart
Eggleston argues that the district court erred by disallowing
punitive damages against Stuart." Clark County and Stuart respond that
the district court properly disallowed punitive damages because Eggleston
sued Stuart in her official capacity.
A tort action against an employee of the State or its political
subdivision "arising out of an act or omission within the scope of the person's
public duties or employment" may not include punitive damages. NRS
41.035(1). To determine whether a party has been sued in his or her official
or individual capacity, this court looks to the allegations of the complaint.
See N. Nev. Ass'n of Injured Workers v. Nev. SIIS, 107 Nev. 108, 114-15,
807
P.2d 728, 732 (1991). "[C]ivil rights violations . . . are hardly descriptive of
acts that may be rationally included within the prerogatives of an
employees official capacity." Id. at 115,
807 P.2d at 732.
Here, Eggleston appeals from a final judgment, the district
coures order dismissing Eggleston's claims. In a prior order, the district
court dismissed punitive damages against Stuart, finding Stuart was
immune from punitive damages because Eggleston's complaint alleged
°However, because Eggleston's state law tort claims appear to be
tied, at least to some extent, to the facts of the DFS case in that they
implicitly dispute the DFS's finding of child maltreatment, a stay may be
appropriate here for certain claims. We therefore reverse the order
dismissing these claims but remand for the district court to determine
whether a stay is appropriate.
11
Egg1eston disputes the district court's dismissal of the request for
punitive damages only as to Stuart on appeal, so we affirm the district
court's dismissal of punitive damages against Clark County.
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
14
0)) 1947A •=4Dr..)
Stuart was acting within the scope of her employment with the exception of
"certain occasions not specifically pleaded within the complaint. However,
in his complaint, Eggleston alleged that Stuart arrived at his home with
two police officers and forced him to sign temporary guardianship papers
under the threat that he would otherwise never see his children again.
Taking these allegations as true, Eggleston could prove that Stuart violated
his civil rights and, therefore, that Stuart was acting in her individual
capacity rather than her official capacity. In turn, Eggleston could be able
to pursue punitive damages against Stuart. Therefore, we conclude that
the district court erred by determining that punitive damages against
Stuart were unavailable to Eggleston at this point in the case.
CONCLUSION
Under Patsy v. Board of Regents, 457 U.S. 496 (1982), a party
is generally not required to exhaust administrative remedies before filing a
§ 1983 civil rights claim. Here, the § 1983 claim is, at its core, one for
substantive due process, and because the exception for procedural due
process claims does not apply, the district court improperly dismissed
Eggleston's § 1983 civil rights claim for failure to exhaust administrative
remedies. Thus, we reverse the dismissal of Eggleston's § 1983 civil rights
claim. We likewise reverse the district court's dismissal of Eggleston's state
law tort claims, reverse the district court's dismissal of punitive damages
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
15
I947A
against Stuart, and remand for further proceedings consistent with this
opinion. We affirm the district court's dismissal of Eggleston's § 1985
conspiracy claim and determination that punitive damages against Clark
County are not available.
J.
Silver
We concur:
, J.
Parraguirre
A/a.sit4-0 , J
Stiglich '
16
