William Webster v. Stacy Bronson, et al, No. 09-35926 (9th Cir. 2010)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
FILED NOV 02 2010 NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT WILLIAM D. WEBSTER, Plaintiff - Appellant, No. 09-35926 D.C. No. 3:07-cv-05661-FDB v. MEMORANDUM * STACY BRONSON, in her professional capacity and KITSAP COUNTY JUVENILE SERVICES, a municipality doing business as Kitsap County, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington Franklin D. Burgess, District Judge, Presiding Submitted October 19, 2010 ** Before: O SCANNLAIN, LEAVY, and TALLMAN, Circuit Judges. William D. Webster appeals pro se from the district court s order dismissing his 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1985 action claiming that family court investigator * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). Stacy Bronson and the Kitsap County Juvenile Services department violated his constitutional rights. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a district court s order granting a motion to dismiss. Steckman v. Hart Brewing, Inc., 143 F.3d 1293, 1295 (9th Cir. 1998). We affirm. To the extent Bronson performed in a quasi-judicial or quasi-prosecutorial function, she had absolute immunity. See Miller v. Gammie, 335 F.3d 889, 898 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc). To the extent Bronson s conduct fell beyond the parameters of absolute immunity, Webster failed to state a cognizable equal protection claim. See Monteiro v. Tempe Union High Sch. Dist., 158 F.3d 1022, 1026 (9th Cir. 1998) (equal protection violations must plead intentional unlawful discrimination or allege facts that are at least susceptible of an inference of discriminatory intent ); see also Kirtley v. Rainey, 326 F.3d 1088, 1096 (9th Cir. 2003) (a guardian ad litem s role does not constitute state action). Webster also failed to state a Monell claim because he alleged no facts suggesting that his constitutional rights were violated pursuant to a policy, practice, or custom of the County. See Monell v. Dep t of Soc. Servs., 436 U.S. 658, 691 (1978). Webster s conspiracy claim was also properly dismissed because conclusory allegations are insufficient to support such a claim. See Olsen v. Idaho State Bd. of 2 09-35926 Medicine, 363 F.3d 916, 929 (9th Cir. 2004) (dismissal of section 1985 conspiracy claim proper where the plaintiff failed to allege sufficiently that the appellees conspired to violate her civil rights ); Woodrum v. Woodward County, 866 F.2d 1121, 1126 (9th Cir. 1989) (conclusory allegations of a conspiracy do not support a claim under section 1983). Contrary to Webster s contention, the district court did not abuse its discretion by denying his motion seeking recusal. See Taylor v. Regents of Univ. of Cal., 993 F.2d 710, 712 (9th Cir. 1993) (adverse rulings alone are insufficient to demonstrate judicial bias). Webster s remaining contentions are unpersuasive. AFFIRMED. 3 09-35926
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
