KEVIN TEEMAN V. YAKIMA COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE, No. 16-35634 (9th Cir. 2017)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION MAR 21 2017 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT KEVIN JAMES TEEMAN; ANDREA JOY LYONS, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS No. 16-35634 D.C. No. 1:15-cv-03139-TOR Plaintiffs-Appellants, MEMORANDUM* v. YAKIMA COUNTY SHERIFF’S OFFICE; et al., Defendants-Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Washington Thomas O. Rice, Chief Judge, Presiding Submitted March 8, 2017** Before: LEAVY, W. FLETCHER, and OWENS, Circuit Judges. Kevin James Teeman and Andrea Joy Lyons appeal pro se from the district court’s summary judgment in their 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging constitutional violations arising from the temporary, warrantless removal of their children. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo, Burke v. County of * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). Alameda, 586 F.3d 725, 730 (9th Cir. 2009), and we affirm. The district court properly granted summary judgment because Teeman and Joy failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether the warrantless removal was impermissible. See Jones v. County of Los Angeles, 802 F.3d 990, 1000 (9th Cir. 2015) (warrantless removal of a child is permissible if there is “reasonable cause to believe that the child is likely to experience serious bodily harm in the time that would be required to obtain a warrant”); see also Mabe v. San Bernadino County, 237 F.3d 1101, 1109-11 (9th Cir. 2001) (setting forth requirements for supervisory and municipal liability under § 1983). We reject as without merit Teeman and Lyons’s contentions regarding the Freedom of Information Act. We do not consider issues raised by Teeman and Lyons in their brief that are not supported by argument. See Acosta-Huerta v. Estelle, 7 F.3d 139, 144 (9th Cir. 1992). AFFIRMED. 2 16-35634

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.