USCA1 Opinion

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT
____________________

No. 95-1594

DIANE WOJCIK, ETC., ET AL.,

Plaintiffs, Appellants,

v.

TOWN OF NORTH SMITHFIELD, ET AL.,

Defendants, Appellees.

____________________

APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF RHODE ISLAND

[Hon. Ronald R. Lagueux, U.S. District Judge]

___________________

____________________

Before

Cyr, Boudin and Stahl,

Circuit Judges.
______________

____________________

Miriam Weizenbaum with whom Amato A. DeLuca and Mandell, DeLuca

_________________
_______________
_______________
Schwartz, Ltd. were on brief for appellants.
______________
Andrew B. Prescott with
___________________

whom Steven M. Richard and

__________________

Tillingh
________

Collins & Graham were on brief for appellees Rhode Island

________________

Rape Cri

Center, Inc., Marion Marceau and Carl Costanza.

Kathleen M. Powers with whom Marc DeSisto and DeSisto Law Offi
__________________
____________
_________________
were on

brief

for

Delage,

Christine

appellees Town
Davidson,

of

Lorraine

North

Smithfield,

Nault, Richard

Henrie

Smith,

Leoni, Richard Brady, Charles T. Shunney and Deborah Mancuso.

Te

____________________

February 1, 1996
____________________

Per Curiam.
__________

In the

district

court, John

and

Diane

Wojcik filed a

U.S.C.

32-count complaint including claims

1983 and

including

under state law for

kidnapping.

North Smithfield, the

("Crisis

The

under 42

an array of offenses

defendants included the

Rhode Island Rape Crisis

Town of

Center, Inc.

Center") and a number of school officials, teachers

and others.

All of these claims derived from two reports of

possible child

abuse, one

initiated by

teacher and

the

other by a Crisis Center employee teaching a special class in

school.

Lagueux's

The facts are set out at some length in

thorough

Smithfield, 874 F.
__________

opinion

in

Wojcik
______

Supp. 508 (D.R.I.

v.

Chief Judge

Town of North
_______________

1995), and we

confine

ourselves to a skeletal summary.

The

first incident occurred in March 1990 in connection

with a program conducted by

and

other

topics

for

the Crisis Center on child abuse

sixth

Smithfield elementary school.

a student

program

in the

and what

advised the

class.

she

Families ("DCF") that

victim

of child

discipline.

abuse

children

at

North

The Wojciks' daughter Mary was

Based

said,

Rhode Island

grade

on

the

her reactions

Crisis

Department of

she suspected that

in the

DCF investigator

form

Center

the

"teacher"

Children and

Their

Mary might be

of excessive

visited

to

the

corporal

the Wojcik

home,

asked questions, and concluded that no abuse had occurred.

-2-2-

The second incident, involving a different teacher and a

different

Wojcik

January 1991.

to her

child,

Katherine.

The child, Katherine Wojcik,

fifth grade teacher

that excessive

occurred almost

year

made statements

that led the teacher

physical punishment

was

later in

to believe

being used

against

Later, reading journal entries made by Katherine,

the teacher's concerns grew, and she and the school principal

jointly

called DCF.

January

1991.

children,

DCF

Another DCF investigation

After

closed

talking

this

to the

case

as

occurred in

Wojciks

well.

and

The

their

lawsuit

followed.

In January

1995, the

district

summary

judgment dismissed a

against

various defendants.

court on

number of the

874

F. Supp.

a motion

for

Wojciks' claims

at

530.

The

remaining claims were tried in April and May 1995, but at the

close of

the plaintiffs'

case, the

district court

granted

judgment as a matter of law under Fed. R. Civ. P. 50 in favor

of the remaining

the

that

defendants on all

remaining claims.

From

bench Judge Lagueux delivered a substantial oral opinion

is unreported.

These appeals followed challenging both

the summary judgment and the directed verdict.

So

far

as

the

reports to

district court concluded

DCF

that those

were

concerned,

defendants involved

the

in

the making of the reports acted reasonably and in good faith.

As

to

the

section

1983

claims,

-3-3-

these

determinations

established

both the

DeCosta v. Chabot, 59
_______
______

presence

to report

a constitutional

violation,

F.3d 279, 280 (1st Cir. 1995), and the

Harlow v.
______

As for the state claims,

Fitzgerald, 547
__________

Rhode Island law

anyone with reasonable cause to suspect child abuse

it to DCF

creates immunity to

General Laws

reports

of

of qualified immunity.

U.S. 800 (1982).

requires

lack

were

and provides that

a good

faith report

a civil or criminal suit.

40-11-3(a), -4.

protected under

Rhode Island

The district judge found the

this provision

against state

claims based on the reports.

On

Center

appeal, the Wojciks

counselor,

and

argue cogently that

later

Katherine's

the Crisis

teacher,

misunderstood what the children were saying; and, in the case

of the journal

that the

entries were

reports to be

DCF's

entries, we are told that

inaccurate.

Katherine now says

But state law

made if a reasonable suspicion

role--not

the

teacher's--to

existed; it is

carry

out

investigation; and nothing in this record seriously

any culpable

mishandling

or malice

in

required

the filing

the

suggests

of

the

reports with DCF.

The

charge

only novel

that

the

reports aside,

violated when school

from one

element in the

the

claims is

the Wojciks'

Fourth

Amendment was

officials transported Katherine by

school to another

talk with her about the

to permit a DCF

second incident.

-4-4-

car

investigator to

The Wojcik sisters

were in different

that

it

would

uncomfortable

questioned.

the

be

more

situation, if the

not actual

Wojciks

also

officials thought

comfortable,

Katherine was upset

reluctance, if

that

schools, and the school

imprisonment and assault claims.

manifestly

children were together when

by the trip and

resistance.

based

in

their

It

is on

went with

this trip

kidnapping,

false

The

Fourth Amendment has been applied to public schools

officials,

primarily

misconduct

or

crime.

in

the

E.g.,
____

investigation

of

student

Vernonia School District v.

__________________________

Alton, 115 S. Ct. 2386 (1995); New Jersey v. T.L.O., 469 U.S.
_____
__________
______

325

(1985).

The Fourth Amendment, however, protects against

unreasonable seizures.
____________

Nothing in

the present facts made it

unreasonable for the school, acting in loco parentis, to move

__ ____ ________

one

of the children from one school to another school in the

vicinity,

by a

so that both children could be questioned together

state official following

made by one

of the teachers.

upon a possible

The claim

merits and the qualified immunity grounds.

abuse report

fails both on

the

Although

the Wojciks renew

their many state

claims on

appeal, the principal weight of their brief is on the federal

claims that we have just discussed.

the

Wojciks are

determinations

district

court

largely answered

of

reasonableness

discussed

the

-5-5-

The state claims made by

by

and

state

the district

good

faith.

claims

both

court's

The

in

its

published opinion

add to the

state

and its oral

discussion.

one, and we have

874 F. Supp. at 524-25.

immunity statute may

be construed, it

nothing to

However the

clearly covers

reports made reasonably and in good faith.

___

The district court, of course, was not the

In

lack

granting summary judgment, its

of

directed

material

facts

verdict, the

reasonable jury could find

unreasonable or that

too think

reasonable

that the

dispute.

rulings were based on the

in dispute;

court's

rulings

and

in

granting the

determined that

that the conduct in

the defendants acted in bad

material facts

fact finder.

no

question was

faith.

were essentially

We

beyond

The Wojciks say that the reasonableness

of the

defendants' conduct is

a proper issue for

the jury;

but issues of characterization, like issues of raw

fact, are

properly resolved by

the court when no reasonable jury could

find otherwise.

We

appreciate the Wojciks'

sense of outrage

that they

have been subject to two embarrassing inquiries that found no

merit to any charge of child abuse.

the government to protect

that in many cases

government

children without making

do turn out to be baseless;

prosecution of crimes

intrusive

But there is no way for

leads in some cases

tax audits sometimes

inquiries

so, too, the

to acquittals and

produce refunds.

Where the

officials act reasonably and in good faith, there

-6-6-

is usually no federal remedy.

If the Wojciks were encouraged

to think otherwise, their advisors were mistaken.

Official

misconduct

out of

does

occur

malice or

and

local

incompetence.

officials

sometimes

do act

We have

ourselves

reversed the district court where we thought there

was enough suspicion of official misconduct to defeat summary

judgment or

jury.

to require a section

Rubinovitz v.
__________

1983 case to

Rogato, 60 F.3d
______

906 (1st

But here Judge Lagueux was scrupulously

summary

proceed to a

Cir. 1995).

careful:

he granted

judgment only on certain claims and after exhaustive

discussion; and on the balance

that other

of the case conducted a trial

judges might well have deemed

unnecessary to the

point where he concluded that the claims were hopeless.

With

that, the Wojciks will have to be content.

There

appeal from

motion to

appeal

is a

the

substantial question

summary judgment

dismiss that appeal

was filed

contest on appeal

late

and

whether the

order was

is before us.

the

Crisis

timely, and

The notice of

Center

the district court's finding

Wojciks'

defendants

of excusable

neglect in allowing the Wojciks' belated motion to extend the

time to appeal

under Fed.

R. App.

difficult question, see Gochis v.

___ ______

12, 15 (1st Cir. 1994), but

addressed

because

the

P. 4(a)(4).

This is

Allstate Ins. Co., 16 F.3d

_________________

we conclude that it need not

affirmance

on

the

vindicates the interests of those defendants.

-7-7-

merits

be

amply

Affirmed.
________

-8-8-