Benavidez v. County of San Diego, No. 19-55274 (9th Cir. 2021)
Annotate this Case
Parents and Minors filed suit against the County and two social workers, alleging claims based on medical examinations of Minors during their time in protective custody. Parents seek to hold the social workers liable under 42 U.S.C. 1983 for unconstitutional judicial deception in seeking a state juvenile court order to authorize unconstitutional medical examinations of the Minors without notice to or consent of the Parents, and the County liable for the unconstitutional medical examinations.
The Ninth Circuit affirmed in part, concluding that the Rooker-Feldman doctrine does not bar subject matter jurisdiction. The panel reversed the district court's dismissal of the claims against the social workers, concluding that Parents sufficiently pleaded section 1983 liability against them. In this case, plaintiffs alleged that Parents objected to medical examinations of the Minors; Parents did not learn of the medical examinations until after the Minors were released from protective custody; the social workers knowingly and falsely represented to the juvenile court that they had made reasonable efforts to notify Parents about the medical examinations; and Parents' statements alleged a violation of constitutional prohibition on judicial deception and met the heightened pleading standard of Rule 9(b). However, the panel affirmed the dismissal with prejudice on the claims against the County where none of the allegations regarding the County's alleged unconstitutional policy, practice, custom, or failure to train its employees provided factual support for Monell liability. The panel explained that Parents failed to provide anything more than the 2015 Policy itself and the facts of a single incidence of an unconstitutional medical examination and judicial deception. The panel remanded for further proceedings.
Court Description: Civil Rights. The panel affirmed in part and reversed in part the district court’s dismissal of an action brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 asserting that County social workers used judicial deception and violated plaintiffs’ constitutional rights in securing a juvenile court order resulting in the medical examinations of plaintiffs’ minor children while the children were in protective custody, without notice to the parents or their consent. The panel first held that the district court correctly ruled that the Rooker-Feldman doctrine did not bar the exercise of subject matter jurisdiction over this case. The panel held that plaintiffs’ claims were not a de facto appeal from the juvenile court orders. Instead, plaintiffs alleged that the misrepresentations and inaction by social workers and other * The Honorable Gary S. Katzmann, Judge for the United States Court of International Trade, sitting by designation. BENAVIDEZ V. COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO 3 County employees resulted in violations of their constitutional rights. The panel held that the amended complaint sufficiently alleged facts in support of a reasonable inference that County social workers committed judicial deception that allowed them to be held liable for the resulting unconsented-to medical examinations. The amended complaint alleged that social workers knowingly and falsely represented to the juvenile court that they had made reasonable efforts to notify the parents about the medical examinations. The parents did not learn of the examinations, however, until after their children were released from custody. The allegations supported a plausible inference that the social workers submitted their report and request for court authorization with at least a reckless disregard for the truth and the alleged misrepresentations were material to the granting of the juvenile court’s orders. The claims were also sufficient under Fed. R. Civ. P. 9(b) because they alleged with particularity a claim involving fraud. Finally, by asserting that the parents did not have knowledge of the medical examinations until after they took place, the amended complaint also sufficiently alleged Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment violations arising from the examinations. The panel held that the social workers were not entitled to qualified immunity for the alleged unconstitutional judicial deception and unconstitutional medical examinations. The panel held that this court’s precedent established the right to be free from judicial deception in child custody proceedings. Thus, a reasonable social worker would understand that providing false information concerning notification to parents when requesting a 4 BENAVIDEZ V. COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO juvenile court order for a medical examination on minors in protective custody would violate or at least disregard a substantial risk of a violation of the parents’ rights. The panel therefore reversed the district court’s dismissal of the claims against the social workers on qualified immunity grounds and remanded for proceedings consistent with the panel’s opinion. The panel held that none of the allegations regarding the County’s alleged unconstitutional policy, practice, custom, or failure to train its employees provided factual support for Monell liability. The panel noted that plaintiffs failed to provide anything more than the 2015 County policy pertaining to parental consent, which was allegedly violated, and the facts of a single incident of an unconstitutional medical examination and judicial deception. These allegations were insufficient to establish a Monell claim. Therefore, the panel affirmed the district court’s dismissal of plaintiffs’ claims against the County. Concurring in the judgment, Judge Collins stated that this was a relatively straightforward case that did not warrant the extended discussion and broader statements contained in the majority opinion. Judge Collins wrote that the complaint’s allegations were sufficient to state a plausible claim of knowing and intentional judicial deception that escaped qualified immunity. He also agreed that plaintiffs’ Monell claim was properly dismissed with prejudice, because the operative complaint did not allege sufficient facts to support such a claim. BENAVIDEZ V. COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO 5
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.