AE Ex Rel. Hernandez v. County of Tulare
2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 1489
| 9th Cir. | 2012Background
- AE, a minor, was sexually assaulted by his seventeen-year-old foster brother in a Tulare County foster care home; he asserted §1983 and state negligence claims against the County and social workers.
- Defendants allegedly knew of escalating threats and violence but failed to intervene or appropriately supervise AE.
- Instances in late 2008 included bruising from the Foster Brother, threats, and AE reporting sexual abuse; AE was moved after investigations.
- The district court dismissed with prejudice all claims against the County and denied leave to amend; AE appealed.
- The court held the district court abused its discretion by denying leave to amend Monell claims and by misapplying state-law immunity analysis, remanding for further proceedings.
- The opinion notes potential viability of both federal and state-law claims depending on facts developed on remand.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Monell liability sufficiency against the County | AE alleged policy/custom under which misconduct occurred | Monell claim pleaded minimally with no specifics | Remand for amendment; dismissal reversed |
| Leave to amend §1983 claim against County be allowed | St Starr standard allows plausible facts to cure deficiencies | Amendment would be futile | Abuse of discretion; reversible error; opportunity to amend granted on remand |
| Derivative liability vs. discretionary act immunity | County liable for employees' negligent acts; immunity not bar | Immunity defeats derivative liability | Derivative claims not fatally barred; remand to allow amendment; immunity not established at pleadings stage |
Key Cases Cited
- Monell v. Dep't of Soc. Servs., 436 U.S. 658 (U.S. 1978) (local government liability requires policy/custom; not respondeat superior alone)
- Whitaker v. Garcetti, 486 F.3d 572 (9th Cir. 2007) (monetary liability requires policy or custom proof; minimal pleading standard discussed)
- Starr v. Baca, 652 F.3d 1202 (9th Cir. 2011) (pleading standards require plausible underlying facts; notice and opportunity to discovery)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (U.S. 2009) (pleading must show plausible entitlement to relief; not mere conclusory recitation of elements)
- Barner v. Leeds, 24 Cal.4th 676 (Cal. 2000) (discretionary act immunity; distinguish policy decisions from operational acts)