Carla Pederson v. Klamath County
692 F. App'x 473
9th Cir.2017Background
- Oregon DHS issued two protective custody orders under Or. Rev. Stat. § 419B.150(1) stating a child, L.P., must be taken into custody; the second order noted law-enforcement entry into the residence would be necessary.
- Klamath County deputies, acting on DHS information, entered Carla Pederson’s home to search for L.P.
- Pederson sued the deputies, Sheriff Tim Evinger, and Klamath County under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Fourth Amendment) and Oregon tort law (intrusion upon seclusion).
- The district court granted summary judgment for defendants; appeal followed to the Ninth Circuit.
- The Ninth Circuit affirmed, resolving qualified-immunity, Monell, and state-tort issues against Pederson.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether deputies violated Fourth Amendment by entering home pursuant to DHS protective custody orders | Pederson: entry/search was unconstitutional warrantless search of her home | Deputies: entry authorized by state protective-custody orders and not clearly unconstitutional | Held: Court assumed possible violation but found deputies entitled to qualified immunity because law was not clearly established in Aug 2011 |
| Whether deputies are entitled to qualified immunity | Pederson: constitutional rule governing these entries was clearly established | Deputies: no controlling precedent made conduct clearly unlawful | Held: Qualified immunity applies; no clearly established law forbade entry under these circumstances |
| Whether Klamath County can be liable under Monell for deputies' conduct | Pederson: county maintained customs/practices causing unconstitutional searches | County: no evidence of official policy/custom causing warrantless searches | Held: No Monell liability; Pederson produced no evidence of county policy or custom |
| Whether state-law intrusion upon seclusion claim is satisfied | Pederson: deputies intentionally entered without authorization and were substantially certain to do so | Deputies: no evidence they intended unlawful entry or were substantially certain to intrude | Held: Summary judgment for defendants; Pederson failed to meet intent/substantial-certainty element |
Key Cases Cited
- Sjurset v. Button, 810 F.3d 609 (9th Cir. 2015) (officers did not violate clearly established law by entering home pursuant to DHS protective custody determination)
- Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223 (2009) (qualified-immunity framework; courts may decide immunity before constitutional question)
- Ashcroft v. Al-Kidd, 563 U.S. 731 (2011) (clearly-established-law inquiry must be particularized)
- White v. Pauly, 137 S. Ct. 548 (2017) (qualifying when constitutional rule is clearly established)
- Monell v. Dep’t of Soc. Servs. of N.Y., 436 U.S. 658 (1978) (municipal liability requires official policy or custom)
- Gillette v. Delmore, 979 F.2d 1342 (9th Cir. 1992) (Monell standards and proof of municipal custom)
- Mauri v. Smith, 929 P.2d 307 (Or. 1996) (elements of Oregon intrusion upon seclusion tort)