Heidi Chiat v. State of Washington, 20-35958

Background

Heidi Chiat appealed the district court’s grant of summary judgment for the Washington Department of Social and Health Services (DSHS) and the court’s partial denial of her Rule 56(d) discovery motion.
Chiat brought federal § 1983 claims and multiple state-law claims arising from DSHS’s investigations, placement of her child K.C., administrative findings, and visitation decisions; the district court separately dismissed claims against individual defendants for lack of personal jurisdiction (unchallenged on appeal).
The district court held DSHS not liable on § 1983 claims because a state agency is not a “person” under the statute, and dismissed state-law claims for actions taken in compliance with court orders based on statutory immunity.
The court granted summary judgment on Chiat’s noncompliance claim for visitation due to lack of evidence that K.C. wanted visitation and was prevented from seeing Chiat.
The court rejected Chiat’s Rule 56(d) request for additional discovery because she failed to identify what facts she expected to uncover or how those facts would avoid summary judgment; it limited further discovery to her abuse-of-process claim.
The court granted summary judgment on the abuse-of-process claim because the record lacked evidence that DSHS used legal process from an earlier dependency proceeding in any subsequent investigation.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether DSHS is a "person" under 42 U.S.C. § 1983	Chiat argued her § 1983 claims could proceed against DSHS	DSHS argued a state agency is not a § 1983 "person"	State agency not a "person"; § 1983 claims dismissed
Whether DSHS is liable for actions taken to comply with court orders	Chiat argued actions (e.g., separating child) were wrongful	DSHS asserted statutory immunity for acts done pursuant to court orders	DSHS immune; claims dismissed
Whether DSHS failed to comply with a court order on visitation	Chiat argued DSHS prevented court-ordered visitation	DSHS argued no evidence K.C. wanted visitation or was blocked	No evidence of noncompliance; claim dismissed
Timeliness / continuing violations for claims about placement and administrative findings	Chiat contended some actions continued into the limitations period	DSHS relied on statute of limitations and merits defenses	Court rejected continuing-violation basis where not shown; disposition on these theories varied by claim and record evidence
Whether denial/limitation of Rule 56(d) discovery was proper	Chiat sought more discovery to oppose summary judgment	DSHS argued Chiat failed to say what discovery would reveal or how it would create a genuine dispute	District court did not abuse discretion; Chiat failed to justify needed discovery
Whether DSHS committed abuse of process by using one proceeding's process in a later investigation	Chiat argued DSHS used legal process from an earlier dependency proceeding in a second investigation	DSHS denied using prior proceeding's legal process in the later investigation	No evidence of reuse of prior legal process; abuse-of-process claim dismissed

Key Cases Cited

Will v. Mich. Dep't of State Police, 491 U.S. 58 (1989) (state or state agencies are not "persons" under § 1983)
Maldonado v. Harris, 370 F.3d 945 (9th Cir. 2004) (applying Will to bar § 1983 claims against state entities)
Momox-Caselis v. Donohue, 987 F.3d 835 (9th Cir. 2021) (standard of review for summary judgment)
Burlington N. Santa Fe R.R. Co. v. Assiniboine & Sioux Tribes of Fort Peck Rsrv., 323 F.3d 767 (9th Cir. 2003) (district courts may tailor and limit discovery when granting Rule 56(d) relief)
Tatum v. City & Cnty. of S.F., 441 F.3d 1090 (9th Cir. 2006) (plaintiff must identify facts discoverable that would preclude summary judgment)
Sea-Pac Co. v. United Food & Com. Workers Loc. Union 44, 699 P.2d 217 (Wash. 1985) (abuse-of-process requires use of legal process from prior suit)
Batten v. Abrams, 626 P.2d 984 (Wash. 1981) (defining elements of abuse of process)