James Endy v. County of Los Angeles
975 F.3d 757
9th Cir.2020Background
- California maintains two child-abuse databases: CACI (statewide, publicly consulted index of substantiated reports) and CWS/CMS (internal statewide case-management system that records all reports and their dispositions).
- CANRA requires agencies to forward substantiated reports to CACI (with notice and a right to agency hearing) but mandates that counties keep internal records in CWS/CMS and does not provide a statutory right to challenge CWS/CMS listings.
- DCFS investigated Endy twice (2014–2015), initially substantiated both times, filed juvenile petitions, and later the juvenile court dismissed the allegations; CA DOJ listing was removed and DCFS updated CWS/CMS to show the allegations as “unfounded.”
- Endy requested hearings to challenge his CACI and CWS/CMS listings; DCFS denied a CACI hearing while juvenile proceedings were pending and denied a CWS/CMS hearing as unavailable. Endy sued the County under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and for privacy violations seeking damages and injunctive relief.
- The district court granted summary judgment for the County; the Ninth Circuit previously affirmed dismissal as to CACI and remanded CWS/CMS claims as premature; on remand the district court again granted summary judgment for the County, and this appeal followed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether inclusion of "unfounded" allegations in CWS/CMS triggers procedural due process (stigma-plus) | Endy: being listed—even as "unfounded"—stigmatizes him and has interfered with employment, visitation, and adoption/guardianship rights, so he is entitled to notice and a hearing. | County: CWS/CMS is a confidential internal database; an "unfounded" label is not a stigmatizing, public listing and there is no evidence his legal rights were altered. | Held: No stigma-plus shown. Inclusion in CWS/CMS of "unfounded" allegations did not deprive Endy of a liberty interest; due process claim fails. |
| Whether the County violated an informational-privacy right by keeping Endy in CWS/CMS | Endy: multiple agencies can access CWS/CMS, so mere inclusion invades informational privacy. | County: No evidence of public dissemination or misuse; government has legitimate interest in retaining reports for child-safety purposes. | Held: Privacy claim fails—no proof of disclosure or that government interest is outweighed. |
| Whether County is liable under Monell for maintaining CWS/CMS records | Endy: County policy/custom caused constitutional injury by keeping and sharing the records. | County: There was no constitutional deprivation to predicate municipal liability; policies limit access and consider only substantiated/inconclusive reports as placement risk factors. | Held: Monell claim fails because plaintiff did not prove an underlying constitutional violation or causal policy/custom. |
| Whether statutory or constitutional process is required to challenge CWS/CMS listings | Endy: argues for a right to a hearing to remove unfounded listings. | County: CANRA provides a hearing process for CACI listings only; CWS/CMS is internal with no statutory hearing right. | Held: No constitutional or statutory right to a hearing for CWS/CMS unfounded listings was recognized on this record. |
Key Cases Cited
- Humphries v. County of Los Angeles, 554 F.3d 1170 (9th Cir. 2009) (recognizing that listing in CACI as a substantiated abuser triggers stigma-plus due-process protections)
- Paul v. Davis, 424 U.S. 693 (U.S. 1976) (defamation alone does not create a constitutional liberty interest absent alteration of legal status)
- Monell v. Dep’t of Social Servs., 436 U.S. 658 (U.S. 1978) (municipal liability requires a policy or custom causing constitutional deprivation)
- Connick v. Thompson, 563 U.S. 51 (U.S. 2011) (definition and scope of official municipal policy and policymaking authority)
- Nat’l Aeronautics & Space Admin. v. Nelson, 562 U.S. 134 (U.S. 2011) (informational-privacy interests are conditional and may be outweighed by government interests)
- Miller v. California, 355 F.3d 1172 (9th Cir. 2004) (governmental listings of suspected child abusers can be defamatory/stigmatizing)
- Wisconsin v. Constantineau, 400 U.S. 433 (U.S. 1971) (reputational harm from government action can implicate liberty interests)