CATHERINE JONES V. CITY & COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO, No. 13-16478 (9th Cir. 2015)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS OCT 26 2015 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT CATHERINE JONES, No. 13-16478 Plaintiff - Appellant, D.C. No. 3:11-cv-04884-LB v. MEMORANDUM* CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO; et al., Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California Laurel D. Beeler, Magistrate Judge, Presiding Submitted October 22, 2015** San Francisco, California Before: WALLACE, SILVERMAN, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges. Catherine Jones appeals from the district court’s summary judgment in favor of the City and County of San Francisco, and county social workers, following the social workers’ removal of her newborn child from her custody without prior * 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). judicial authorization. We review the district court’s decision de novo, Mabe v. San Bernardino County, Dept. of Pub. Soc. Serv., 237 F.3d 1101, 1106 (9th Cir. 2001), and we affirm. The district court correctly ruled that the defendants were entitled to qualified immunity because the undisputed facts show that they identified specific, articulable evidence which provided them with the reasonable belief that the child was in imminent danger of harm; the scope of their actions was tailored to avert the specific harm feared; and they followed state law in assuring prompt judicial review of their actions. Burke v. Cnty. of Alameda, 586 F.3d 725, 731 (9th Cir. 2009); Rogers v. Cnty. of San Joaquin, 487 F.3d 1288, 1294 (9th Cir. 2007); Wallis v. Spencer, 202 F.3d 1126, 1138 (9th Cir. 2000). We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised in the opening brief, or arguments and allegations raised for the first time on appeal or in the reply brief. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009) (per curiam). AFFIRMED. 2 13-16478

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.