Summary
affirming because the child was in “imminent danger of harm”
Summary of this case from Pope v. Cnty. of San DiegoOpinion
No. 13-16478
10-26-2015
CATHERINE JONES, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO; et al., Defendants - Appellees.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
D.C. No. 3:11-cv-04884-LB MEMORANDUM 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.
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). --------
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 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.