Williams et al v. San Diego, County of et al, No. 3:2017cv00815 - Document 23 (S.D. Cal. 2017)
Court Description: ORDER Granting in Part and Denying in Part 15 Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs' Complaint. The Court grants in part and denies in part Defendants' motion to dismiss. Plaintiffs must file an amended complaint that cures the deficiencies addressed herein on or before 1/12/2018. Signed by Judge Michael M. Anello on 12/21/2017. (rmc)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Williams et al v. San Diego, County of et al Doc. 23 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 10 11 12 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA KATY WILLIAMS; GARY EVANS; and Minor Plaintiffs A.C., Am.E. and Aa.E., by and through their Guardian Ad Litem, JOHN GARTER, 13 Case No.: 17cv815-MMA (JLB) ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS PLAINTIFFS’ COMPLAINT Plaintiffs, 14 v. 15 COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO; COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES AGENCY; DANIEL V. BERNAL; JANET BARRAGAN, and MIRIAM G. PARTIDA, 16 17 18 19 [Doc. No. 15] Defendants. 20 Plaintiffs Katy Williams, Gary Evans, and minor plaintiffs A.C., Am.E., and Aa.E., 21 by and through their Guardian ad Litem, John Garter (collectively, “Plaintiffs”), filed this 22 action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Defendants County of San Diego (“County”), 23 County of San Diego Health and Human Services Agency (“HHSA”), Daniel Bernal 24 (“Bernal”), Janet Barragan (“Barragan”), and Miriam Partida (“Partida”) alleging 25 violations of Plaintiffs’ First, Fourth, and Fourteenth Amendment rights. See Doc. No. 1. 26 Plaintiffs also raise claims under Monell. Defendants move to dismiss Plaintiffs’ 27 Complaint for failure to state a claim for relief pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil 28 Procedure 12(b)(6). Doc. No. 15. Plaintiffs filed an opposition, to which Defendants -1- 17cv815-MMA (JLB) Dockets.Justia.com 1 replied. Doc. Nos. 16, 17. The Court found the matter suitable for determination on the 2 papers and without oral argument pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7.1.d.1. Doc. No. 18. For 3 the reasons set forth below, the Court GRANTS IN PART and DENIES IN PART 4 Defendants’ motion to dismiss. 5 6 BACKGROUND Plaintiff Katy Williams (“Williams”) is the natural mother of A.C., Am.E., and 7 Aa.E (“Minor Plaintiffs”). Complaint ¶ 11. Williams has another minor child, D.C., who 8 is not a plaintiff in this action. Complaint ¶ 11. Plaintiff Gary Evans (“Evans”) is the 9 natural father of Am.E. and Aa.E. Complaint ¶ 12. Williams and Evans share custody of 10 Am.E. and Aa.E, and Williams has sole custody of A.C. Complaint ¶¶ 13-14. On April 11 24, 2017, the Court appointed Mr. John Garter as Guardian ad Litem for Minor Plaintiffs. 12 See Doc. No. 4. Defendants Bernal, Barragan, and Partida (collectively, the “social 13 worker defendants”) are officers, agents, and/or employees of the County and HHSA. 14 Complaint ¶¶ 5-7. 15 In 2013, the County and HHSA first became acquainted with Williams and her 16 children after an incident involving D.C.’s father, Jason Clark (“Clark”). Complaint ¶ 15. 17 Clark became violent with Williams and threatened to kill her. Complaint ¶ 15. As a 18 result, Williams obtained a restraining order against Clark. Complaint ¶ 15. 19 In June 2014, HHSA filed a petition on D.C.’s behalf alleging D.C. sustained 20 bruises to his head, “which would not ordinarily be sustained except as a result of the 21 unreasonable acts of D.C.’s father[.]” Complaint ¶ 16. Juvenile dependency proceedings 22 commenced shortly thereafter. Complaint ¶ 16. D.C. lived with Williams during this 23 time, and Clark was no longer able to have unsupervised visits with his son. Complaint ¶ 24 16. Clark, angry about the supervised visits with D.C., began making “false allegations 25 against Williams and [Evans.]” Complaint ¶¶ 17-18. 26 In January 2016, Clark reported a bruise near D.C.’s eye to HHSA. Complaint ¶ 27 21. D.C. “hit his left eye on a corner of a kitchen island while playing with Minor 28 Plaintiff Aa.E.” Complaint ¶ 21. Bernal inspected the bruise on January 8, 2016. -2- 17cv815-MMA (JLB) 1 Complaint ¶ 21. During Bernal’s investigation, Bernal informed Williams that he wished 2 to interview minor plaintiff Aa.E. alone. Complaint ¶ 22. Williams advised Bernal that 3 she did not consent to such an interview. Complaint ¶ 22. On January 11, 2016, Evans 4 and Williams’ attorney sent a letter to the County, HHSA, and Bernal, indicating that 5 “Minor Plaintiffs were represented by counsel and that no interviews of Minor Plaintiffs 6 A.C., Am.E. or Aa.E. should take place without counsel present.” Complaint ¶ 23. 7 On January 12, 2016, D.C. sustained injuries to his head when “he ran into a 8 doorknob at his home[.]” Complaint ¶ 24. Williams took D.C. to the hospital, and the 9 doctor discharged D.C. indicating that D.C. “sustained a ‘normal childhood injury.’” 10 Complaint ¶ 24. Clark, once again, reported the incident to the HHSA hotline. 11 Complaint ¶ 24. 12 On January 19, 2016, Bernal went to A.C.’s middle school, instructed staff to 13 remove her from her classroom, and “detained her against her will” without court order, 14 parental consent, knowledge, or presence. Complaint ¶ 25. That same day, Bernal also 15 visited Am.E. and Aa.E.’s elementary school, instructed staff to remove them from their 16 classrooms, and “detained them against their will” without court order, parental consent, 17 knowledge, or presence. Complaint ¶ 26. Once the children were removed from their 18 classrooms, Bernal, Barragan, and Partida “interrogated” the children, despite the fact 19 that Bernal, the County, and HHSA “were informed in writing” that Evans and Williams 20 “did not want their minor children to be interviewed by social workers with the County 21 and HHSA without a parent and/or attorney being present at that interview.” Complaint ¶ 22 27. Notably, there were not, nor have there ever been, any allegations that Minor 23 Plaintiffs were abused or neglected by their parents, or any other individuals. Complaint 24 ¶ 27. 25 During the interviews, the social worker defendants inquired about Minor 26 Plaintiffs’ safety at home, how their parents disciplined them, and whether D.C. “was an 27 active child.” Complaint ¶ 28. The social worker defendants did not inform the Minor 28 Plaintiffs that they could decline to be interviewed, nor were they given a choice about -3- 17cv815-MMA (JLB) 1 being interviewed “once they were detained and confronted by the Defendant workers.” 2 Complaint ¶ 29. Further, the Minor Plaintiffs “were not informed that they could have a 3 parent and/or an attorney present for the interviews.” Complaint ¶ 29. At the time of the 4 interviews, “Defendants did not have exigency, Court Order, parental consent, knowledge 5 or presence, or even reasonable suspicion that the Minor Plaintiffs were the subject of 6 abuse or neglect.” Complaint ¶ 30. 7 Based on these allegations, Plaintiffs bring six causes of action. Specifically, 8 Plaintiffs bring four causes of action against the social worker defendants: (1) retaliation 9 in violation of Plaintiffs’ First Amendment rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1983; (2) unlawful 10 seizure in violation of Minor Plaintiffs’ Fourth Amendment rights under 42 U.S.C. § 11 1983; (3) interference with Plaintiffs’ Fourteenth Amendment familial association rights 12 under 42 U.S.C. § 1983; and (4) interference with Plaintiffs’ Fourteenth Amendment 13 procedural due process rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Further, Plaintiffs bring one cause 14 of action against the County and HHSA for municipal liability under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 15 (“Monell claim”). Finally, Plaintiffs bring one cause of action against all Defendants for 16 injunctive relief. Defendants move to dismiss Plaintiffs’ Complaint in its entirety. 17 18 19 LEGAL STANDARDS A. Request for Judicial Notice Generally, a court must take judicial notice if a party requests it and supplies the 20 court with the requisite information. Fed. R. Evid. 201(d). “A judicially noticed fact 21 must be one not subject to reasonable dispute in that it is either (1) generally known 22 within the territorial jurisdiction of the trial court or (2) capable of accurate and ready 23 determination by resort to sources whose accuracy cannot reasonably be questioned.” 24 Fed. R. Evid. 201(b); see Mack v. South Bay Beer Distributors, 798 F.2d 1279, 1282 (9th 25 Cir. 1986) (citing Sears, Roebuck & Co. v. Metropolitan Engravers, Ltd., 245 F.2d 67, 70 26 (9th Cir. 1956)). While a court may take judicial notice of matters of public record, it 27 may not take judicial notice of a fact that is subject to reasonable dispute. Fed. R. Evid. 28 201(b); Lee v. City of Los Angeles, 250 F.3d 668, 688-89 (9th Cir. 2001). -4- 17cv815-MMA (JLB) 1 2 B. Rule 12(b)(6) A Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss tests the sufficiency of the complaint. Navarro 3 v. Block, 250 F.3d 729, 732 (9th Cir. 2001). A pleading must contain “a short and plain 4 statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief. . . .” Fed. R. Civ. P. 5 8(a)(2). However, plaintiffs must also plead “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is 6 plausible on its face.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6); Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 7 570 (2007). The plausibility standard thus demands more than a formulaic recitation of 8 the elements of a cause of action, or naked assertions devoid of further factual 9 enhancement. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). Instead, the complaint “must 10 contain allegations of underlying facts sufficient to give fair notice and to enable the 11 opposing party to defend itself effectively.” Starr v. Baca, 652 F.3d 1202, 1216 (9th Cir. 12 2011). 13 In reviewing a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), courts must assume the truth 14 of all factual allegations and must construe them in the light most favorable to the 15 nonmoving party. Cahill v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., 80 F.3d 336, 337–38 (9th Cir. 1996). 16 The court need not take legal conclusions as true merely because they are cast in the form 17 of factual allegations. Roberts v. Corrothers, 812 F.2d 1173, 1177 (9th Cir. 1987). 18 Similarly, “conclusory allegations of law and unwarranted inferences are not sufficient to 19 defeat a motion to dismiss.” Pareto v. FDIC, 139 F.3d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1998). 20 In determining the propriety of a Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal, courts generally may not 21 look beyond the complaint for additional facts. United States v. Ritchie, 342 F.3d 903, 22 908 (9th Cir. 2003). “A court may, however, consider certain materials—documents 23 attached to the complaint, documents incorporated by reference in the complaint, or 24 matters of judicial notice—without converting the motion to dismiss into a motion for 25 summary judgment.” Id.; see also Lee v. City of Los Angeles, 250 F.3d 668, 688 (9th Cir. 26 2001). Where dismissal is appropriate, a court should grant leave to amend unless the 27 plaintiff could not possibly cure the defects in the pleading. Knappenberger v. City of 28 Phoenix, 566 F.3d 936, 942 (9th Cir. 2009). -5- 17cv815-MMA (JLB) 1 2 DISCUSSION A. 3 Plaintiffs’ Request for Judicial Notice As an initial matter, Plaintiffs request that the Court take judicial notice of the 4 district court’s order in Dees v. County of San Diego, 2017 WL 4511003, (S.D. Cal. Oct. 5 10, 2017). See Doc. No. 21. In Dees, the district court granted judgment as a matter of 6 law in favor of the defendants, some of which are defendants in the instant action. See id. 7 at 2. Plaintiffs summarily state the decision is “persuasive authority to the pending 8 matter before this Court.” Id. Defendants filed an objection to Plaintiffs’ request for 9 judicial notice. See Doc. No. 22. Defendants contend Dees is “irrelevant” to the case at 10 bar and “devoid of any precedential value.” Id. at 1. Though the Court finds Dees is 11 relevant to the instant action, the Court DENIES Plaintiffs’ request for judicial notice, 12 however, as “[j]udicial notice is not required to alert the Court to relevant case authority.” 13 Hamilton v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 2010 WL 1460253, at *1 n.1 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 12, 14 2010). 15 B. 16 Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Defendants argue that the Court should dismiss Plaintiffs’ Complaint in its entirety 17 for the following reasons: (1) Plaintiffs fail to allege violations of their constitutional 18 rights, and even if they did, the social worker defendants are entitled to qualified 19 immunity; (2) Plaintiffs fail to allege sufficient facts to support their municipal liability 20 claim; and (3) Plaintiffs fail to allege circumstances justifying injunctive relief. See Doc. 21 No. 15-1. The Court addresses each argument in turn. 22 1. 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and Qualified Immunity 23 Defendants first argue that Plaintiffs state no violation of their First, Fourth, or 24 Fourteenth Amendment rights. However, even if Plaintiffs did state a violation of their 25 constitutional rights, the social worker defendants are entitled to qualified immunity. See 26 Doc. No. 15-1 at 3-9. 27 28 42 U.S.C. § 1983 creates a means for redressing violations of substantive rights created by the United States Constitution or federal statutes. See Baker v. McCollan, 443 -6- 17cv815-MMA (JLB) 1 U.S. 137, 140 (1979). It states, “[e]very person who, under color of any statute, 2 ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State . . . subjects, or causes to be 3 subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof 4 to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and 5 laws, shall be liable to the party injured . . . .” 42 U.S.C. § 1983. “The purpose of § 1983 6 is to deter state actors from using the badge of their authority to deprive individuals of 7 their federally guaranteed rights and to provide relief to victims if such deterrence fails.” 8 Wyatt v. Cole, 504 U.S. 158, 161 (1992) (citing Carey v. Piphus, 435 U.S. 247, 254–57 9 (1978)). To state a claim under section 1983, a plaintiff must allege (1) he or she was 10 deprived of a right secured by the United States Constitution or federal laws, and (2) the 11 deprivation was caused by a person acting under color of state law. Parratt v. Taylor, 12 451 U.S. 527, 535, (1981) (overruled in part on other grounds, Daniels v. Williams, 474 13 U.S. 327, 330–31 (1986)). 14 The doctrine of qualified immunity protects “government officials . . . from 15 liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established 16 statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” 17 Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 818 (1982). Courts considering a claim of qualified 18 immunity must determine whether the plaintiff has alleged both: “(1) that the official 19 violated a statutory or constitutional right, and (2) that the right was ‘clearly established’ 20 at the time of the challenged conduct.” Ashcroft v. al-Kidd, 563 U.S. 731, 735 (2011) 21 (citing Harlow, 457 U.S. at 818). The Supreme Court has clarified that “lower courts 22 have discretion in deciding which of the two prongs of the qualified-immunity analysis to 23 tackle first.” Id. (citing Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223, 236 (2009)). Regarding the 24 second prong, the relevant, dispositive inquiry in determining whether a right is clearly 25 established is whether it would be clear to a reasonable officer that his conduct was 26 unlawful in the situation he confronted. Saucier v. Katz, 533 U.S. 194, 202 (2001). The 27 inquiry “must be undertaken in light of the specific context of the case, not as a broad 28 general proposition.” Id. at 201. -7- 17cv815-MMA (JLB) 1 The purpose underlying this defense is “to strike a balance between the competing 2 need to hold public officials accountable when they exercise power irresponsibly and the 3 need to shield officials from harassment, distraction, and liability when they perform their 4 duties reasonably.” Mattos v. Agarano, 661 F.3d 433, 440 (9th Cir. 2011). 5 6 a. First Amendment Violation Plaintiffs allege that “[i]n retaliation against [Plaintiffs’] exercise of their legal 7 rights under the First and Fifth Amendment to object to, refuse, and/or complain about 8 the conduct of the COUNTY, HHSA, and its social workers,” the social worker 9 defendants “acted together in initiating and conducting investigations and proceedings . . 10 . to interfere with the legal custody rights of [Plaintiffs].” Complaint ¶ 40. In their 11 motion, Defendants contend Plaintiffs fail to sufficiently allege “the threshold elements 12 of a First Amendment retaliation claim[.]” Doc. No. 15-1 at 5. However, even if 13 Plaintiffs “had adequately pled facts showing a First Amendment violation via retaliation, 14 qualified immunity would nonetheless shield the social worker Defendants from liability 15 because their actions did not violate clearly established law.” Id. 16 To state a claim for retaliation under the First Amendment, a plaintiff must allege 17 that: “(1) he was engaged in a constitutionally protected activity, (2) the defendant’s 18 actions would chill a person of ordinary firmness from continuing to engage in the 19 protected activity and (3) the protected activity was a substantial or motivating factor in 20 the defendant’s conduct.” O’Brien v. Welty, 818 F.3d 920, 932 (9th Cir. 2016) (quoting 21 Pinard v. Clatskanie Sch. Dist. 6J, 467 F.3d 755, 770 (9th Cir. 2006)). 22 Here, the Court finds that Plaintiffs have not sufficiently alleged a claim for 23 retaliation. As an initial matter, Minor Plaintiffs have not demonstrated that they were 24 engaged in a constitutionally protected activity. As the Complaint alleges, Williams 25 notified Bernal that “she would not consent to an interview [of Aa.E. alone] without the 26 presence of either her or an attorney.” Complaint ¶ 22. Moreover, attorneys for the 27 “WILLIAMS/EVANS’ family sent a letter to COUNTY, HHSA AND BERNAL, 28 informing said Defendants that the Minor Plaintiffs were represented by counsel and that -8- 17cv815-MMA (JLB) 1 no interviews of Minor Plaintiffs . . . should take place without counsel present.” 2 Complaint ¶ 23. Thus, as alleged, it does not appear that Minor Plaintiffs were engaged 3 in any constitutionally protected activity. As such, Minor Plaintiffs’ First Amendment 4 claim fails on this basis. 5 Further, even assuming Evans and Williams have sufficiently alleged that they 6 were engaged in a constitutionally protected activity, Plaintiffs allege insufficient facts to 7 support the second and third elements of their First Amendment claim—namely that 8 Defendants’ actions would chill a person of ordinary firmness, and that engaging in their 9 constitutionally protected right was a substantial motivating factor in Defendants’ 10 conduct. For example, after Plaintiffs’ counsel sent a letter to the County, HHSA, and 11 Bernal indicating that Minor Plaintiffs were represented by counsel, D.C. sustained 12 another injury. Complaint ¶ 24. Plaintiffs fail to sufficiently allege that the social worker 13 defendants conducted the interviews based upon the family’s letter, as opposed to solely 14 investigating D.C.’s injuries. As such, Plaintiffs fail to allege “plausible circumstances 15 connecting the defendants’ retaliatory intent to the suppressive conduct.” Arizona 16 Student’ Ass’n v. Arizona Bd. of Regents, 824 F.3d 858, 870 (9th Cir. 2016). 17 Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Defendants’ motion and DISMISSES Plaintiffs’ 18 section 1983 claim to the extent it is based upon a First Amendment violation with leave 19 to amend. 20 21 b. Fourth Amendment Violation Minor Plaintiffs assert that the social worker defendants committed an unlawful 22 seizure by removing them from their classrooms at school, detaining them, and 23 questioning them without exigency, court order, the consent and/or knowledge of a 24 parent, and without reasonable suspicion that they were subject to abuse or neglect. 25 Complaint ¶ 32. Defendants argue such conduct does not violate the Fourth Amendment. 26 Doc. No. 15-1 at 6. Further, even if the social workers’ interviews violated the Minor 27 Plaintiffs’ Fourth Amendment rights, this right was not clearly established at the time of 28 the interviews; thus, the social worker defendants are entitled to qualified immunity. See -9- 17cv815-MMA (JLB) 1 2 id. at 7; Doc. No. 17 at 4-6. The Fourth Amendment protects “[t]he right of the people to be secure in their 3 persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures[.]” U.S. 4 CONST. amend IV. A seizure of a person occurs when, considering all of the 5 circumstances, “a reasonable person would have believed that he was not free to leave.” 6 Jones v. Cnty. of L.A., 802 F.3d 990, 1001 (9th Cir. 2015) (citing United States v. 7 Mendenhall, 446 U.S. 544, 554 (1980)). 8 9 Here, the Court finds that Plaintiffs sufficiently state a constitutional violation of the Minor Plaintiffs’ Fourth Amendment rights. While no binding authority has 10 addressed the precise situation at issue, interviewing minors at school without parental 11 consent can violate constitutional rights. See Dees, 2017 WL 4511003, at *7 (concluding 12 a social worker’s interview of a child at school, without parental consent, exigency, court 13 order, or reasonable suspicion the child was the subject of child abuse, violated the 14 child’s Fourth Amendment rights); Stoot v. City of Everett, 582 F.3d 910, 921 (9th Cir. 15 2009) (in-school interview by detective of teenager suspected of sexual assault was a 16 seizure under the Fourth Amendment); Jones v. Hunt, 410 F.3d 1221, 1226-27 (10th Cir. 17 2005) (social worker and police officer’s in-school interview of teenager suspected of 18 child abuse violated teenager’s Fourth Amendment rights). Accordingly, in light of the 19 relevant case law, the Court finds that Plaintiffs sufficiently allege a violation of Minor 20 Plaintiffs’ Fourth Amendment rights. 21 However, the Court finds that the social worker defendants are entitled to qualified 22 immunity because the right was not clearly established at the time of the interviews. 23 Plaintiffs rely primarily on two Ninth Circuit decisions in support of their contention that 24 the social worker defendants “had fair notice that their actions were unlawful.”1 Doc. 25 26 27 28 1 Plaintiffs also cite to two decisions from outside of the Ninth Circuit: (1) Hunt, 410 F.3d at 1226-27, and (2) Word of Faith Fellowship, Inc. v. Rutherford Cnty. Dep’t of Soc. Servs., 329 F. Supp. 2d 675, 687 (W.D.N.C. 2004). However, the Ninth Circuit has made clear that only prior, factually similar precedent can create clearly established law. S.B. v. Cnty. of San Diego, 864 F.3d 1010, 1015-16 -10- 17cv815-MMA (JLB) 1 No. 16 at 9. First, Plaintiffs cite to Stoot, where the Ninth Circuit concluded that a 2 detective’s school interview of a minor accused of sexual assault constituted a seizure. 3 582 F.3d at 918. As Defendants note, Stoot did not involve a social worker interviewing 4 a child at school in connection with a child abuse investigation, as alleged here. Thus, 5 Stoot does not constitute “clearly established law” sufficient to make clear to reasonable 6 social worker that his or her conduct was clearly unlawful. See White v. Pauly, 137 S. Ct. 7 548, 552 (2017) (articulating that “clearly established law must be ‘particularized’ to the 8 facts of the case.”). 9 Second, Plaintiffs cite to Greene v. Camreta, where the Ninth Circuit concluded 10 that “the decision to seize and interrogate [a minor plaintiff at school] in the absence of a 11 warrant, a court order, exigent circumstances, or parental consent was unconstitutional” 12 under the Fourth Amendment. 588 F.3d 1011, 1030 (9th Cir. 2009). The Supreme 13 Court, however, dismissed the action as moot and specifically vacated the part of the 14 Ninth Circuit’s opinion regarding the Fourth Amendment issue. Camreta v. Greene, 563 15 U.S. 692, 697 (2011). Plaintiffs contend that “the Ninth Circuit’s reasoning in [Greene] 16 provides fair notice to the County and its social workers . . . that their warrantless, non- 17 exigent, ‘interview-at-any-time-we-wish’ school interviews violate the Fourth 18 Amendment rights of the children who are seized from their classrooms and detained for 19 interviews.” Doc. No. 16 at 9. Yet, the Supreme Court expressly stated that “[t]he point 20 of vacatur is to prevent an unreviewable decision from spawning any legal consequences 21 . . . Vacatur then rightly strips the decision below of its binding effect, and clears the path 22 for future relitigation.” Camreta, 563 U.S. at 713 (internal quotation marks and citations 23 omitted). As such, Greene does not place social workers on notice that interviewing a 24 child at school without a warrant, parental consent, or exigency is unlawful. See Capp v. 25 26 27 28 (9th Cir. 2017); see also Blanford v. Sacramento Cty., 406 F.3d 1110, 1119 (9th Cir. 2005) (qualified immunity applies when “neither the Supreme Court nor circuit precedent in existence [at the time] . . . would have put a reasonable officer [in the same position] on notice” that his or her conduct was unlawful). As such, both cases are inapposite. -11- 17cv815-MMA (JLB) 1 Cnty. of San Diego, 2017 WL 1400148, at *5 (S.D. Cal. Apr. 19, 2017) (concluding 2 social workers are entitled to qualified immunity “in the absence of binding authority 3 establishing that a social worker’s interview of a child at school violates the child’s 4 Fourth Amendment rights.”); McManus v. Cnty. of San Diego, 2016 WL 3552007, at *4 5 (S.D. Cal. June 30, 2016) (finding Greene did “not lend support to Plaintiff’s legal theory 6 that parental rights are violated whenever a 14-year-old minor is removed from school 7 and interviewed in the course of a child abuse investigation without the parent’s consent, 8 a court order, or exigent circumstances”); Mann v. Cnty. of San Diego, 2013 WL 9 4046642, at *10 (S.D. Cal. Aug. 8, 2013) (finding the defendants were entitled to 10 qualified immunity where the plaintiffs relied solely on Greene for the proposition that a 11 social worker’s interview of a child at school violates the Constitution). 12 Accordingly, the Court finds that the social worker defendants are entitled to 13 qualified immunity on Minor Plaintiffs’ section 1983 claim to the extent it is based upon 14 a violation of their Fourth Amendment rights. 15 16 c. Fourteenth Amendment Violation: Substantive Due Process Plaintiffs assert that the social worker defendants “interfered with the familial 17 association rights” of Evans and Williams “to the care, custody and control of their 18 children, and the rights of the Minor Plaintiffs to the care and comfort of their parents” by 19 “seizing, detaining and interrogating the Minor Plaintiffs without exigency, Court Order, 20 just or reasonable cause, or consent[.]” Complaint ¶ 47. Defendants contend the 21 substantive due process right to familial association is implicated only when a child is 22 physically separated from a parent, and does not apply to situations where children are 23 interviewed at school during a child abuse investigation. See Doc. No. 15-1 at 7-8. 24 Moreover, Defendants claim that even if such conduct did rise to the level of a 25 constitutional violation, the social worker defendants are entitled to “qualified 26 immunity[] because any Fourteenth Amendment prohibition on their conduct was far 27 from clearly established.” Id. at 8. 28 “The Fourteenth Amendment protects individuals against the deprivation of -12- 17cv815-MMA (JLB) 1 property by the government without due process.” Portman v. Cnty. of Santa Clara, 995 2 F.2d 898, 904 (9th Cir. 1993). “The substantive due process right to family integrity or to 3 familial association is well established,” such that “[a] parent has a ‘fundamental liberty 4 interest’ in companionship with his or her child.” Rosenbaum v. Washoe Cnty., 663 F.3d 5 1071, 1079 (9th Cir. 2011) (quoting Kelson v. City of Springfield, 767 F.2d 651, 654-55 6 (9th Cir. 1985)). “The Fourteenth Amendment guarantees that parents will not be 7 separated from their children without due process of law except in emergencies.” Mabe 8 v. San Bernardino Cnty., Dep’t of Pub. Soc. Servs., 237 F.3d 1101, 1107 (9th Cir. 2001). 9 To allege a Fourteenth Amendment violation premised on the unlawful 10 interference with familial rights, a plaintiff must demonstrate that “the [alleged] harmful 11 conduct must ‘shock [ ] the conscience’ or ‘offend the community’s sense of fair play and 12 decency.” Rosenbaum, 663 F.3d at 1079 (quoting Rochin v. California, 342 U.S. 165, 13 172-73 (1952). “[T]he due process guarantee does not entail a body of constitutional law 14 imposing liability whenever someone cloaked with state authority causes harm.” Cnty. of 15 Sacramento v. Lewis, 523 U.S. 833, 846 (1998). Rather, to impose liability for a 16 violation of an individual’s due process rights, the official’s actions must “shock[ ] the 17 conscience.” Id. 18 Here, to the extent that Plaintiffs assert that the school interviews violated the 19 Minor Plaintiffs’ substantive due process rights, such allegations are duplicative of Minor 20 Plaintiffs’ Fourth Amendment claim. The Supreme Court has held that where a 21 constitutional claim is covered by a specific constitutional amendment, then “the claim 22 must be analyzed under the standard appropriate to that specific provision, not under the 23 rubric of substantive due process.” Lewis, 523 U.S. at 843 (internal quotation omitted); 24 accord Albright v. Oliver, 510 U.S. 266, 272-73 (1994) (noting that when a broad “due 25 process” violation is alleged, but a particular amendment “provides an explicit textual 26 source of constitutional protection” against a particular sort of government behavior, 27 “that Amendment, not the more generalized notion of ‘substantive due process,’ must be 28 the guide for analyzing the[] claims.” (quoting Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386, 395 -13- 17cv815-MMA (JLB) 1 (1989)); Fontana v. Haskin, 262 F.3d 871, 882 (9th Cir. 2001). In Plaintiffs’ opposition, 2 Plaintiffs apparently concede this point noting “Plaintiffs have alleged violations of the 3 Minor Plaintiffs’ Fourth Amendment rights and Evans and Williams’ Fourteenth 4 Amendment rights.” Doc. No. 16 at 16 (emphasis added). Thus, because the Fourth 5 Amendment provides an explicit textual source of constitutional protection, Minor 6 Plaintiffs’ Fourteenth Amendment substantive due process claim is subsumed by the 7 Fourth Amendment analysis above. 8 9 Regarding the parents, the Court finds that Evans and Williams sufficiently allege a Fourteenth Amendment substantive due process violation. Parents have a protected 10 liberty interest in the “companionship, care, custody and management of [their] children.” 11 Lassiter v. Dep’t of Soc. Servs., 452 U.S. 18, 27 (1981). However, a parent’s rights are 12 limited by the government’s interest in protecting minor children. See Wallis v. Spencer, 13 202 F.3d 1126, 1138 (9th Cir. 2000). Though no binding authority has yet addressed this 14 situation, the district court in Dees recently found that a social worker’s interview of a 15 minor child at school without parental consent, exigency, court order, or suspicion that 16 the child was abused “shocks the conscience” and violates the Fourteenth Amendment 17 rights of the child’s parent. 2017 WL 4511003, at *8-9. Plaintiffs allege nearly identical 18 conduct to that alleged in Dees. Moreover, Plaintiffs repeatedly emphasize that “there 19 were not, nor have there ever been any allegations that the minor plaintiffs were abused 20 or neglected by their parents or anyone else.” Complaint ¶ 27. As such, construing 21 Plaintiffs’ allegations in the light most favorable to them, the Court finds the reasoning in 22 Dees to be persuasive, and concludes that Evans and Williams sufficiently allege a 23 violation of their Fourteenth Amendment substantive due process rights on the basis of 24 interference with familial relations. 25 Nevertheless, the Court finds that the social worker defendants are entitled to 26 qualified immunity because any prohibition of their conduct was not clearly established 27 at the time of the interviews. Plaintiffs rely solely on Doe v. Heck, 327 F.3d 492, 524 28 (7th Cir. 2003), in support of their argument that “clearly established law supports -14- 17cv815-MMA (JLB) 1 Plaintiffs’ claim for violation of substantive due process.” Doc. No. 16 at 15. In Heck, 2 the Seventh Circuit found that “the defendants violated the plaintiffs’ right to familial 3 relations by conducting a custodial interview of John Doe Jr. without notifying or 4 obtaining the consent of his parents and by targeting the plaintiff parents as child 5 abusers.” 327 F.3d at 524. However, as discussed above, the Ninth Circuit requires 6 identifying “precedent” at the time of the alleged constitutional violation “that put [the 7 defendants] on clear notice” that their conduct was unlawful. S.B., 864 F.3d at 1015 8 (emphasis added). Because Heck, a decision from the Seventh Circuit, is not binding 9 upon a district court in the Ninth Circuit, the social worker defendants are entitled to 10 qualified immunity. See McManus, 2016 WL 3552007, at *4 (granting qualified 11 immunity to social workers because where “the child’s removal is from school rather 12 than the home, the parent’s right of familial association would appear to be leagues short 13 of being clearly established.”). 14 Accordingly, the Court finds that the social worker defendants are entitled to 15 qualified immunity on Evans and Williams’ section 1983 claim to the extent it is based 16 upon a violation of their Fourteenth Amendment substantive due process rights. 17 18 d. Fourteenth Amendment Violation: Procedural Due Process Plaintiffs further allege the social worker defendants violated their procedural due 19 process rights by “deliberately disregard[ing] Plaintiffs’ request that an attorney be 20 present at any and all interviews of the Minor Plaintiffs by County of San Diego social 21 workers.” Complaint ¶ 54. Plaintiffs contend Evans and Williams “were not given any 22 notice that their children were to be seized and detained by Defendant Social Workers or 23 any opportunity to be heard.” Doc. No. 16 at 16. Defendants argue that Plaintiffs fail to 24 allege a deprivation of a protected liberty interest; thus, “Plaintiffs’ procedural due 25 process claim fails on this threshold inquiry.” Doc. No. 15-1 at 9. However, even if 26 Plaintiffs could sufficiently allege a procedural due process violation, the social worker 27 defendants are entitled to qualified immunity because such conduct “did not violate 28 clearly established law[.]” Id. -15- 17cv815-MMA (JLB) 1 “A section 1983 claim based upon procedural due process [ ] has three elements: 2 (1) a liberty or property interest protected by the Constitution; (2) a deprivation of the 3 interest by the government; (3) lack of process.” Portman, 995 F.2d at 904. Due process 4 requires “a person deprived of property [or liberty] be given an opportunity to be heard at 5 a meaningful time and in a meaningful manner.” Buckingham v. Sec’y of U.S. Dep’t of 6 Agr., 603 F.3d 1073, 1082 (9th Cir. 2010) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). 7 Procedural due process “does not require that the notice and opportunity to be heard 8 occur before the deprivation;” rather, it “can take place through a combination of pre- and 9 post-deprivation procedures, or be satisfied with post-deprivation process alone[.]” Id. 10 11 (internal citations omitted). Here, it is unclear whether Plaintiffs intend to assert a procedural due process 12 claim on behalf of all individuals, or just Evans and Williams. For example, the 13 Complaint alleges a cause of action for procedural due process on behalf of all Plaintiffs. 14 However, in Plaintiffs’ opposition, Plaintiffs claim that “Plaintiffs were not given any 15 notice that their children were to be seized and detained by Defendant Social Workers or 16 any opportunity to be heard.” Doc. No. 16 at 16. Such a statement implies that the cause 17 of action is brought solely on behalf of the parents. Moreover, the district court in Shuey 18 v. County of Ventura found that a minor plaintiff’s procedural due process claim 19 “essentially duplicates his Fourth Amendment claim” and must be analyzed under the 20 Fourth Amendment. 2015 WL 6697254, at *7 (C.D. Cal. Nov. 3, 2015). Plaintiffs 21 provide no case law on point indicating whether minor plaintiffs in this situation can 22 assert a procedural due process claim, when the underlying facts mirror Minor Plaintiffs’ 23 Fourth Amendment claim. As such, the Court finds that at this time, Minor Plaintiffs fail 24 to allege a violation of their Fourteenth Amendment procedural due process rights. 25 Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Defendants’ motion and DISMISSES Minor 26 Plaintiffs’ section 1983 claim based on a violation of their procedural due process rights 27 with leave to amend. 28 Regarding Williams and Evans, the Court finds that the parents sufficiently state a -16- 17cv815-MMA (JLB) 1 procedural due process violation. As noted above, Evans and Williams have sufficiently 2 alleged that they were deprived of their well-established right to family integrity under 3 the Fourteenth Amendment. Thus, the first two elements of Evans and Williams’ 4 procedural due process claim are satisfied. Next, Evans and Williams must show a lack 5 of process. Portman, 995 F.2d at 904. “While the level of process differs depending on 6 the factual situation, the allegation that no predeprivation process was provided in a non- 7 emergency situation states a claim.” Demaree v. Krause, 2012 WL 12548144, at *7 (D. 8 Ariz. Sept. 10, 2012); see also Pinnacle Armor, Inc. v. United States, 648 F.3d 708, 716 9 (9th Cir. 2011) (noting that procedural due process is “flexible depending on the 10 circumstances”). The Seventh Circuit has found that interviewing a child at school 11 without first notifying the parents and obtaining their consent is sufficient to state a claim 12 for violation of the plaintiffs’ procedural due process rights. Heck, 327 F.3d at 527. 13 Accordingly, taking Plaintiffs’ allegations as true, the Court finds that Evans and 14 Williams’ allegations are sufficient to allege a violation of procedural due process. 15 The Court, however, finds that the social worker defendants are entitled to 16 qualified immunity. Plaintiffs argue that “[t]he procedural due process rights of parents 17 were recognized by the Ninth Circuit in Wallis v. Spencer . . . and were more recently 18 recognized in Shuey v. County of Ventura, 2015 WL 6697254, [at] *7 (C.D. Cal. Nov. 3, 19 2015).” Doc. No. 16 at 16. However, Wallis is factually distinguishable from the case at 20 bar. There, the plaintiffs alleged violations of the family’s constitutional rights based on 21 the “unlawful removal” of the children “from their home in the middle of the night and 22 by the subsequent unlawful detention of the children, including the invasive vaginal and 23 anal examinations.” Wallis, 202 F.3d at 1136. Here, the children were not physically 24 removed from their parents. Rather, the children were taken out of their classrooms and 25 interviewed at school. Thus, Wallis does not support Plaintiffs’ argument that the 26 “contours of this right” were well-established at the time of the interviews in January 27 2016. Doc. No. 16 at 16. 28 Moreover, in Shuey, the district court considered a procedural due process claim by -17- 17cv815-MMA (JLB) 1 a minor, J.S., and his father, Mr. Shuey, in connection with social workers’ in-school 2 interview and physical examination of J.S. 2015 WL 6697254, at *7, 1. The court 3 dismissed J.S.’s procedural due process claim as duplicative of his Fourth Amendment 4 claim because he generally asserted that the social workers “should have obtained 5 consent or a court order prior to conducting the interview.” 2015 WL 6697254, at *7. As 6 for Mr. Shuey, the court noted that “Defendants do not appear to challenge Shuey’s 7 procedural due process claim with respect to the interview,” and Mr. Shuey’s procedural 8 due process claim survived the motion to dismiss. See id. Thus, contrary to Plaintiffs’ 9 assertion, Shuey is insufficient to demonstrate a clearly established right. Moreover, 10 “district court decisions—unlike those from the courts of appeals—do not necessarily 11 settle constitutional standards or prevent repeated claims of qualified immunity.” S.B., 12 864 F.3d at 1016 (quoting Hamby v. Hammond, 821 F.3d 1085, 1095 (9th Cir. 2016)). 13 Accordingly, the Court finds that the social worker defendants are entitled to 14 qualified immunity on Evans and Williams’ section 1983 claim to the extent it is based 15 upon a violation of their Fourteenth Amendment procedural due process rights. 16 2. Municipal Liability (“Monell”) Claim 17 Second, Defendants argue that Plaintiffs fail to allege specific facts necessary to 18 support each of the elements of their Monell claim. See Doc. No. 15-1 at 10-11. 19 Plaintiffs assert their Monell claim against the County and HHSA. 20 “As a prerequisite to establishing Section 1983 municipal liability,” a plaintiff 21 must satisfy one of three conditions. Trevino v. Gates, 99 F.3d 911, 918 (9th Cir. 1996). 22 First, a municipality may be liable under § 1983 where it acted pursuant to an official 23 municipal policy, causing a constitutional tort. See Monell, 436 U.S. at 691-95. Second, 24 a municipality may be held liable under § 1983 when the municipality’s omissions or 25 failures to act amounted to a policy of deliberate indifference to constitutional rights. 26 Clouthier v. Cnty. of Contra Costa, 591 F.3d 1232, 1249 (9th Cir. 2010) (overruled in 27 part on other grounds, Castro v. Cnty. of L.A., 833 F.3d 1060 (9th Cir. 2016)). Third, a 28 municipality may be held liable under § 1983 when government officials with final -18- 17cv815-MMA (JLB) 1 policy-making authority either: (a) committed the underlying constitutional violation 2 themselves, or (b) ratified the unconstitutional conduct of a subordinate. See id. 3 After establishing one of the above methods of liability, the plaintiff must show 4 that the challenged municipal conduct was both the cause in fact and the proximate cause 5 of the constitutional deprivation. Harper v. City of Los Angeles, 533 F.3d 1010, 1026 6 (9th Cir. 2008); Trevino, 99 F.3d at 918. 7 Defendants argue Plaintiffs’ Monell claim fails for several reasons: (a) Plaintiffs 8 fail to allege the deprivation of a constitutional right; (b) Plaintiffs fail to identify a policy 9 that condones the violation of a family’s constitutional rights during child abuse 10 investigations; (c) Plaintiffs fail to allege facts sufficient to plausibly state that the County 11 and HHSA were “deliberately indifferent;” and (d) Plaintiffs fail to allege the policy was 12 the “moving force” behind the constitutional violations. The Court addresses each 13 argument in turn. 14 a. Constitutional Deprivation 15 Defendants first contend that Plaintiffs fail to plausibly allege an underlying 16 constitutional deprivation; thus, Plaintiffs’ Monell claim fails. See Doc. No. 15-1 at 10. 17 However, for the reasons set forth above, the Court disagrees. Plaintiffs have not 18 sufficiently alleged a violation of their First Amendment rights, and Minor Plaintiffs’ 19 procedural due process rights. Plaintiffs have, however, sufficiently alleged 20 constitutional violations of Minor Plaintiffs’ Fourth Amendment rights, and Evans and 21 Williams’ Fourteenth Amendment substantive and procedural due process rights. As 22 such, the Court proceeds to analyze Defendants’ remaining arguments. 23 24 b. Official Policy or Custom Second, Defendants contend Plaintiffs fail to allege that the social workers acted 25 pursuant to a policy. A plaintiff may establish municipal liability “by demonstrating that 26 . . . the constitutional tort was the result of a longstanding practice or custom which 27 constitutes the standard operating procedure of the local government entity[.]” Price v. 28 Sery, 513 F.3d 962, 966 (9th Cir. 2008). An “official” municipal policy or custom does -19- 17cv815-MMA (JLB) 1 not necessarily require that the municipality have expressly adopted the alleged policy. 2 Webb v. Sloan, 330 F.3d 1158, 1164 (9th Cir. 2003). However, such a “custom must be 3 so ‘persistent and widespread’ that it constitutes a ‘permanent and well settled . . . 4 policy.’” Trevino, 99 F.3d at 918 (quoting Monell, 436 U.S. at 691). 5 Here, the Court finds Plaintiffs’ allegations sufficient to allege the existence of a 6 custom or policy. Although Plaintiffs do not provide an explicit policy,2 Plaintiffs allege 7 that the County “established and/or followed policies” which were “the moving force 8 behind the violations of Plaintiffs’ constitutional rights[.]” Complaint ¶ 60. Such 9 policies include, but are not limited to, seizing and detaining children at school without 10 exigent circumstances or parental consent, causing minor children to be interviewed at 11 school without a court order or parental consent, retaliating against individuals who 12 exercise their constitutional right to refuse and/or complain about the actions of the 13 County and HHSA, by acting with deliberate indifference in implementing a policy of 14 inadequate training, and by acting with deliberate indifference in failing to correct the 15 wrongful conduct of other employees. Complaint ¶ 60. 16 Moreover, of particular importance is the fact that the social worker defendants 17 conducted more than one interview. Plaintiffs allege that the social worker defendants 18 went to A.C.’s middle school, and interviewed A.C. without parental consent or court 19 order. Complaint ¶ 25. The same day, the social worker defendants went to Am.E. and 20 Aa.E.’s elementary school, and removed both children from their respective classes and 21 interviewed them without parental consent or court order. Complaint ¶ 26. Though it is 22 unclear whether Am.E. and Aa.E. were interviewed together or spearately, the social 23 worker defendants conducted at least two interviews, if not three. Compare Davis, 869 24 25 26 27 28 2 The Court notes that Plaintiffs’ attorney submitted a declaration in support of Plaintiffs’ opposition to the instant motion, which includes as Exhibit 1 a copy of the County of San Diego, Health and Human Services Agency’s policy entitled “Interviewing a Child at School.” See Doc. No. 16-1. However, in ruling on the instant motion to dismiss, the Court may not look beyond the Complaint for additional facts. See Ritchie, 342 F.3d at 908. Accordingly, the Court does not rely on this document in reaching its conclusion below. -20- 17cv815-MMA (JLB) 1 F.2d at 1233 (“A plaintiff cannot prove the existence of a municipal policy or custom 2 based solely on the occurrence of a single incident of unconstitutional action by a non- 3 policymaking employee.”) (emphasis in original)). Therefore, the Court finds Plaintiffs 4 have sufficiently alleged the existence of a policy. 5 The Court is mindful that ultimately considerably more evidence will likely be 6 necessary to establish liability under Monell. See Trevino, 99 F.3d at 918. However, 7 taking Plaintiffs’ allegations as true, the Court finds that Plaintiffs’ allegations are 8 sufficient at the pleading stage to allege the existence of a policy or custom. 9 c. Deliberate Indifference 10 Third, Defendants argue Plaintiffs’ Complaint is “devoid of any factual 11 allegations” necessary to support” a Monell claim under a theory of deliberate 12 indifference. Doc. No. 15-1 at 12. A municipality may also be held liable under a theory 13 of omission for failure to adequately train or supervise its employees. See Cloutheir, 591 14 F.3d at 1249. “To impose liability on a local government for failure to adequately train 15 its employees, the government’s omission must amount to ‘deliberate indifference’ to a 16 constitutional right.” Id. Plaintiffs face “much more difficult problems of proof” where 17 plaintiffs allege inadequate training led municipal employees to violate their rights. Bd. 18 of Cnty. Comm’rs of Bryan Cnty. v. Brown, 520 U.S. 397, 406 (1997). “[A] plaintiff 19 seeking to establish municipal liability on the theory that a facially lawful municipal 20 action has led an employee to violate a plaintiff’s rights must demonstrate that the 21 municipal action was taken with ‘deliberate indifference’ as to its known or obvious 22 consequences.” Id. (citing City of Canton v. Harris, 489 U.S. 378, 379 (1989)); see also 23 Gibson v. Cnty. of Washoe, Nev., 290 F.3d 1175, 1186 (9th Cir. 2002). 24 Here, the Complaint alleges the County and HHSA have a policy, practice, and 25 custom of seizing and detaining children at school and interviewing them without 26 parental consent, court order, notice to parents, and without exigency. See Complaint ¶ 27 60. Plaintiffs allege such a policy is unconstitutional and directly caused Plaintiffs’ 28 injuries. Complaint ¶ 60. Moreover, Plaintiffs allege that the County and HHSA -21- 17cv815-MMA (JLB) 1 established or followed policies including the policy of acting with “deliberate 2 indifference in failing to correct (including counseling and/or discipline) the wrongful 3 conduct of other employees in failing to provide the Constitutional protections 4 guaranteed to individuals[.]” Complaint ¶ 60(e). The County and HHSA “breached their 5 duties and obligations to Plaintiffs” by “failing to properly select, supervise, train, 6 control, and review their agents and employees as to their compliance with Constitutional 7 safeguards; and by permitting the individually named Defendants . . . to engage in the 8 unlawful and unconstitutional conduct as herein alleged.” Complaint ¶ 62. Plaintiffs 9 contend that the County and HHSA “knew, or should have known, that by breaching the 10 aforesaid duties and obligations, it was foreseeable that they would, and did, cause 11 Plaintiffs to be injured and damaged by their wrongful policies and acts . . . .” Complaint 12 ¶ 63. 13 As noted above, Plaintiffs may prove municipal liability under either the more 14 direct theory of liability (based on a policy), or the “deliberate indifference” route for 15 violations based on omissions. See Gibson, 290 F.3d at 1186. In fact, depending on the 16 facts of a given case, a reasonable jury could find liability under either theory. See id. 17 Accordingly, taking Plaintiffs’ allegations as true, the Court finds Plaintiffs’ sufficiently 18 allege a Monell claim under both theories of liability. 19 d. Whether the Policy was the “Moving Force” Behind the Violation 20 Fourth, Defendants claim that Plaintiffs fail to allege facts which demonstrate that 21 the alleged policy was the “moving force” behind the constitutional violations. Doc. No. 22 15-1 at 13. In order to meet the causation requirement, a plaintiff must show both 23 causation-in-fact and proximate causation. Gravelet-Blondin v. Shelton, 728 F.3d 1086, 24 1096 (9th Cir. 2013). Here, however, Plaintiffs expressly allege that pursuant to the 25 County and HHSA’s policies, procedures, customs and/or practices, Defendants seized, 26 interviewed and detained the children at school without exigent circumstances, court 27 order, or parental consent, thereby directly injuring Plaintiffs. See Complaint ¶ 60. 28 Plaintiffs further allege that the failure to adequately train, supervise, and discipline its -22- 17cv815-MMA (JLB) 1 employees also caused Plaintiffs’ injuries. See Complaint ¶¶ 61-63. Accordingly, the 2 Court finds that Plaintiffs allege sufficient facts to satisfy the causation element of their 3 Monell claim. See Dees, 2017 WL 4511003, at *10 (finding the defendant’s “policy and 4 longstanding practice of permitting social workers to interview children at school in the 5 absence of a court order, warrant, parental consent, exigency, or reasonable suspicion was 6 the factual and proximate cause of [the plaintiffs’] injuries.”). 7 8 9 e. Conclusion Based on the foregoing, the Court finds that the Plaintiffs fail to allege a violation of their First Amendment rights, as well as Minor Plaintiffs’ procedural due process 10 rights. As such, the Court GRANTS Defendants’ motion and DISMISSES Plaintiffs’ 11 Monell claim to the extent it is based upon violations of such rights with leave to amend. 12 Moreover, the Court finds that Plaintiffs have sufficiently alleged a violation of 13 Minor Plaintiffs’ Fourth Amendment rights, as well as Evans and Williams’ Fourteenth 14 Amendment substantive and procedural due process rights. Plaintiffs have also 15 sufficiently alleged facts to support the existence of a policy, in addition to facts 16 supporting a claim based on deliberate indifference. Lastly, Plaintiffs have sufficiently 17 alleged that the policy was the moving force behind the social worker defendants’ 18 actions. Therefore, the Court DENIES Defendants’ motion to dismiss Plaintiffs’ Monell 19 claim based on violations of Minor Plaintiffs’ Fourth Amendment rights, and Evans and 20 Williams’ Fourteenth Amendment substantive and procedural due process rights. 21 3. Claim for Injunctive Relief 22 Finally, Defendants assert Plaintiffs’ claim for injunctive relief fails because 23 “Plaintiffs have not factually alleged that they are currently, or at imminent risk of, being 24 subjected to further child abuse investigations involving such interviews.” Doc. No. 15-1 25 at 14. Plaintiffs oppose, claiming “Defendants will continue to act in accordance with the 26 County’s unlawful policies and procedures . . . and that Defendants’ continued actions 27 will cause injury to Plaintiffs (Complaint, ¶ 69).” Doc. No. 16 at 17-18. 28 Local governments “can be sued directly under § 1983 for monetary, declaratory, -23- 17cv815-MMA (JLB) 1 or injunctive relief, where . . . the action that is alleged to be unconstitutional implements 2 or executes a policy statement, ordinance, regulation, or decision officially adopted and 3 promulgated by that body’s officers.” Monell, 436 U.S. at 690. To establish Article III 4 standing, a plaintiff must show that he or she suffered an “injury in fact,” that the injury 5 is “fairly traceable” to the challenged conduct, and that it is “likely” and not just 6 “speculative” that the injury will be “redressed by a favorable decision.” Lujan v. 7 Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 560–61 (1992). The Supreme Court has cautioned 8 that injunctive relief is “an extraordinary remedy that may only be awarded upon a clear 9 showing that the plaintiff is entitled to such relief.” Winter v. Natural Res. Def. Council, 10 Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 22 (2008). “In the particular context of injunctive and declaratory relief, 11 a plaintiff must show that he has suffered or is threatened with a concrete and 12 particularized legal harm, coupled with a sufficient likelihood that he will again be 13 wronged in a similar way.” Canatella v. State of California, 304 F.3d 843, 852 (9th Cir. 14 2002) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). 15 Here, the Court finds Plaintiffs fail to sufficiently allege standing to pursue 16 injunctive relief because Plaintiffs do not allege that there is a sufficient likelihood that 17 Defendants will conduct in-school interviews of the Minor Plaintiffs again in a similar 18 way. Rather, Plaintiffs generally assert, “Defendants have not changed or modified such 19 actions, conduct and/or policies to conform to law” and as a result, Defendants “will 20 continue to act in accordance with said unlawful policies[.]” Complaint ¶¶ 68, 69. 21 Additionally, Plaintiffs claim that “[g]iven Defendants’ brazen violation of the rights of 22 the Plaintiffs by seizing and interviewing the Plaintiff Minors after being put on notice 23 that they wanted counsel present for any such interview, it is certain that a ‘real threat of 24 future violations’ exists in this case.” Doc. No. 16 at 18. Such speculative and 25 conclusory allegations, however, are insufficient to demonstrate that there is a likelihood 26 Plaintiffs will be wronged in a similar way in the future. See Canatella, 304 F.3d at 852. 27 As the Supreme Court noted, “[p]ast exposure to illegal conduct does not in itself show a 28 present case or controversy regarding injunctive relief . . . if unaccompanied by any -24- 17cv815-MMA (JLB) 1 2 continuing, present adverse effects.” O’Shea v. Littleton, 414 U.S. 488, 495-96 (1974). Further, the Supreme Court in City of Los Angeles v. Lyons found that the plaintiff 3 did not have standing to sue for injunctive relief against the City of Los Angeles based on 4 an allegedly unprovoked and unjustified chokehold by a police officer because the 5 plaintiff did not face “a real and immediate threat of again being illegally choked.” 461 6 U.S. 95, 119 (1983). In reaching this conclusion, the Supreme Court noted that five 7 months passed between the date of the alleged incident and the filing of the plaintiff’s 8 complaint, but there were no allegations of any other encounters with the police during 9 that five-month period. Id. at 108. Here, Plaintiffs commenced this action in April 10 2017—more than one year after the allegedly unconstitutional interviews occurred. See 11 Doc. No. 1. Similar to Lyons, Plaintiffs do not allege any additional encounters with the 12 County, HHSA, or the social worker defendants. Thus, Plaintiffs allege insufficient facts 13 to show that they are likely to suffer future injury from the alleged misconduct by the 14 defendants. See Lyons, 461 U.S. at 110. 15 16 Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Defendants’ motion and DISMISSES Plaintiffs’ claim for injunctive relief with leave to amend. 17 18 CONCLUSION Based on the foregoing, the Court GRANTS IN PART and DENIES IN PART 19 Defendants’ motion to dismiss. Plaintiffs must file an amended complaint that cures the 20 deficiencies addressed herein on or before January 12, 2018. 21 22 IT IS SO ORDERED. 23 24 25 26 27 Dated: December 21, 2017 _____________________________ HON. MICHAEL M. ANELLO United States District Judge 28 -25- 17cv815-MMA (JLB)
]]>
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.
