191419P.pdf   05/19/2020  Dwight Mitchell  v.  Dakota County Social Services
   U.S. Court of Appeals Case No:  19-1419
   U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota   
   [PUBLISHED] [Erickson, Author, with Grasz and Kobes, Circuit Judges] 
   Civil case - Civil rights. In an action alleging three Minnesota child 
   welfare statutes were facially invalid, the district court did not err in 
   finding the plaintiffs did not have standing as they were no longer 
   residents of the state and their claim that they might one day return was 
   too speculative to show a real and immediate threat of repeat injury; 
   without an injury in fact, plaintiff Mitchell and his children lack 
   standing; nor was the speculative future action alleged in the complaint 
   sufficient to confer standing on any individual member of the plaintiff 
   association; as a result, neither the individual plaintiffs nor the 
   association have standing to challenge the facial constitutionality of the 
   statutes; a claim the procedures used in the child abuse proceeding 
   violated plaintiff Mitchell's substantive due process rights rejected; 
   comments of a case agent, while unprofessional, were not conscience 
   shocking and did not constitute a constitutional violation; claim that 
   defendants fabricated evidence was only a conclusory allegation and was 
   insufficient to raise a plausible due process claim; case agent's comments 
   had no impact on the outcome of the proceedings, and plaintiff failed to 
   plead a racial discrimination claim on which relief may be granted; 
   because Mitchell has failed to plead a plausible constitutional claim his 
   municipality liability claims fail; children's claims fail for the same 
   reasons outlined above; removal of the children from the family home based 
   on a reasonable suspicion of child abuse did not shock the conscience, and 
   the children did not establish a viable substantive due process violation 
   for their prolonged separation from Mitchell; in any event, because all of 
   the actions taken by all of the defendants were in response to a 
   reasonable suspicion of child abuse, they were entitled to qualified 
   immunity; with respect to plaintiffs' state law claim the defendants were 
   entitled to immunity because none of the conduct alleged in the complaint 
   rose to the level of maliciousness required to deny official immunity 
   under Minnesota law.