Nunes v. Stephens, No. 19-16815 (9th Cir. 2020)
Annotate this Case
Angelina Nunes, individually and as Guardian Ad Litem for her minor children, and Emanuel Alves filed a 42 U.S.C. 1983 action against the County and its attorneys for unlawfully viewing the juvenile records of the children in violation of California Welfare & Institutions Code Section 827.
The Ninth Circuit reversed the district court's denial of defendants' motion to dismiss on qualified immunity grounds, holding that Gonzalez v. Spencer, 336 F.3d 832 (9th Cir. 2003), did not clearly establish a constitutional privacy right in juvenile records. Therefore, the panel could not conclude that every reasonable official acting as defendants did would have known they were violating the constitutional rights of plaintiffs based on Gonzalez, the only authority on which plaintiffs relied. The panel concluded that defendants were entitled to qualified immunity and remanded for further proceedings.
Court Description: Civil Rights. The panel reversed the district court’s denial of a motion to dismiss on qualified immunity grounds, and remanded, in an action brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against the County of Stanislaus and its attorneys for unlawfully viewing the juvenile records of D.X. and L.X. in violation of California Welfare & Institutions Code Section 827. Plaintiffs sued defendants for unlawfully accessing the children’s juvenile records without first obtaining a court order from the juvenile court, as required under California Welfare & Institutions Code Section 827. County Counsel believed W&I § 827 did not require court authorization to access the records and disclose them to the County’s outside counsel in a related lawsuit. The panel held that this court’s opaque opinion in Gonzalez v. Spencer, 336 F.3d 832 (9th Cir. 2003), did not * The Honorable Roslyn O. Silver, United States District Judge for the District of Arizona, sitting by designation. 4 NUNES V. ARATA SWINGLE VAN EGMOND & GOODWIN clearly establish a constitutional privacy right in juvenile records. Therefore, the panel could not conclude that every reasonable official acting as defendants did would have known they were violating the constitutional rights of plaintiffs based on Gonzalez, the only authority on which plaintiffs relied. The panel did not decide whether the Constitution provides a privacy right in juvenile records; rather, the panel decided only that no such right was clearly established at the time of the defendants’ alleged conduct. Therefore, defendants were entitled to qualified immunity. Concurring, Judge Hunsaker, joined by Judge Silver, wrote separately to emphasize one point—that an en banc court should reconsider Gonzalez v. Spencer, 336 F.3d 832 (9th Cir. 2003), and address in earnest whether there exists a constitutional right to privacy in juvenile records.
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.