Jamie Kirkpatrick v. County of Washoe
2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 11918
9th Cir.2015Background
- Newborn B.W. tested positive for methamphetamine; mother Rachel Whitworth admitted recent meth use and lacked stable housing; WCDSS had custody of her other children.
- WCDSS social workers visited the hospital, placed an informal "hold," then took custody of two-day-old B.W. and placed her with a foster parent without prior judicial authorization.
- A state protective custody hearing was held the day after removal; paternity for appellant Jamie Kirkpatrick was established only after the seizure.
- Kirkpatrick sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging Fourteenth Amendment and Fourth Amendment violations (on behalf of B.W.); district court granted summary judgment for defendants; appeal followed.
- Ninth Circuit affirmed dismissal of Kirkpatrick’s Fourteenth Amendment claim (he lacked a cognizable liberty interest at time of seizure) but reversed summary judgment on B.W.’s Fourth Amendment claim, holding triable issues exist on warrantless seizure, qualified immunity, and municipal liability for Washoe County.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did Kirkpatrick have a Fourteenth Amendment liberty interest at time of removal? | Kirkpatrick: he had parental rights and was deprived of familial association. | Defendants: paternity was unestablished at seizure; he lacked a cognizable parental interest. | Held: Kirkpatrick lacked a protected liberty interest when B.W. was seized; summary judgment for defendants affirmed. |
| Did the complaint give adequate notice that B.W. asserted a Fourth Amendment claim? | Plaintiffs: complaint alleged B.W.’s right to be with parents was violated and defendants treated the suit as on B.W.’s behalf. | Defendants: complaint used singular "Plaintiff" and did not expressly plead a child’s Fourth Amendment claim. | Held: Complaint provided adequate notice; district court erred to dismiss B.W.’s claim on pleading grounds. |
| Did Wilcox and Kennedy violate a clearly established Fourth Amendment right (warrant requirement) or have qualified immunity? | Plaintiffs: warrantless seizure absent imminent danger violated B.W.’s Fourth Amendment rights; precedent clearly established warrant requirement. | Defendants: removal was reasonable given mother’s drug use, risk of absconding, and informal hospital "hold"; they lacked training and reasonable notice that a warrant was required. | Held: Triable factual dispute whether exigency justified warrantless seizure; Rogers/Mabe/Wallis made the rule clearly established—qualified immunity denied for Wilcox and Kennedy; remand for trial. |
| Is Washoe County liable under Monell for an unofficial custom of removing children without warrants? | Plaintiffs: testimony shows an unofficial County practice/protocol of not obtaining warrants for removals. | County: no policy to remove absent imminent danger; isolated testimony insufficient to show a pervasive custom. | Held: Evidence (depositions) created an inference of an unconstitutional unofficial custom; summary judgment for County reversed and Monell claim survives to trial. |
Key Cases Cited
- Mabe v. San Bernardino Cnty., Dep’t of Pub. Soc. Servs., 237 F.3d 1101 (9th Cir. 2001) (officials must obtain prior judicial authorization unless there is reasonable cause to believe the child faces imminent serious bodily injury)
- Wallis v. Spencer, 202 F.3d 1126 (9th Cir. 1999) (Fourth Amendment governs child removals; warrant requirement absent exigency)
- Rogers v. Cnty. of San Joaquin, 487 F.3d 1288 (9th Cir. 2007) (warrantless removal requires imminent danger; held clearly established law)
- Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386 (U.S. 1989) (use Fourth Amendment analysis for seizures rather than substantive due process)
- United States v. Mendenhall, 446 U.S. 544 (U.S. 1980) (objective test for seizure based on officers’ words and actions)
- Saucier v. Katz, 533 U.S. 194 (U.S. 2001) (qualified-immunity two-step: constitutional violation and clearly established right)
- Ashcroft v. al-Kidd, 563 U.S. 731 (U.S. 2011) (contours of a right must be sufficiently clear that a reasonable official would understand the conduct was unlawful)
- Monell v. Dep’t of Soc. Servs., 436 U.S. 658 (U.S. 1978) (municipal liability requires an official policy or custom causing the constitutional violation)