John Benavidez v. County of San Diego
993 F.3d 1134
| 9th Cir. | 2021

Background

  • In March 2016 San Diego HHSA social workers Jennifer Lisk and Benita Jemison removed two minor children to Polinsky Children’s Center (PCC); a detention hearing occurred March 21, 2016 with the parents present.
  • County detention paperwork and the juvenile-court Orders authorizing medical examinations recited that the County had made reasonable efforts to notify parents; the complaint alleges those recitals were false and that parents were not told.
  • The minors underwent intrusive medical examinations at PCC on March 22, 2016 (genital/anal inspection, urine testing, blood draws/vaccinations); parents learned only after the children were released.
  • Plaintiffs sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Lisk, Jemison, and the County, alleging judicial deception (material misrepresentations/omissions to the juvenile court) and Fourth/Fourteenth Amendment violations from unconsented exams.
  • The district court dismissed: it found no jurisdictional bar (Rooker-Feldman), dismissed the individual-defendant claims on qualified-immunity grounds, and dismissed the Monell claim against the County with prejudice.
  • The Ninth Circuit affirmed that Rooker-Feldman did not bar suit, reversed dismissal of the social workers (denying qualified immunity on the judicial-deception claim), and affirmed dismissal with prejudice of the County’s Monell claim; the case was remanded.

Issues

Issue Plaintiff's Argument Defendant's Argument Held
Whether Rooker‑Feldman bars federal jurisdiction Benavidezs: claims allege extrinsic fraud/judicial deception by social workers and are not a de facto appeal County: federal suit impermissibly seeks review of juvenile-court Orders Court: Rooker‑Feldman inapplicable; extrinsic‑fraud exception applies (claims target pre‑order misconduct)
Whether pleadings sufficiently allege judicial deception (and meet Rule 9(b)) Plaintiffs: complaint alleges who, what, when, where — social workers omitted/ misrepresented notice efforts; Orders relied on those recitals County: allegations are conclusory and not pleaded with required particularity Court: allegations plausible and sufficiently particular under Rule 9(b); states claim for judicial deception violating due process
Whether Lisk and Jemison are entitled to qualified immunity Plaintiffs: right to be free from judicial deception in child‑custody context was clearly established; knowingly/ recklessly false recitals caused exams Social workers: no clearly established right to notice from particular individuals; qualified immunity protects them Court: qualified immunity denied as to judicial deception — precedent put reasonable social workers on notice that material falsehoods to obtain orders violate constitutional rights
Whether County is liable under Monell (policy/custom/failure to train) Plaintiffs: County policy/practice or failure to train led to violations; earlier decisions show systemic problem County: 2015 policy required parental notice/consent; single incident insufficient to establish municipal liability Court: Monell theories fail — plaintiffs pleaded only the 2015 policy plus a single incident; no pattern, deliberate indifference, or causal municipal policymaker shown; dismissal with prejudice affirmed

Key Cases Cited

  • Rooker v. Fidelity Trust Co., 263 U.S. 413 (U.S. 1923) (federal district courts lack jurisdiction to review state court judgments)
  • D.C. Ct. of Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462 (U.S. 1983) (federal review of state court judicial decisions is limited)
  • Noel v. Hall, 341 F.3d 1148 (9th Cir. 2003) (formulation distinguishing Rooker‑Feldman from ordinary federal claims)
  • Kougasian v. TMSL, Inc., 359 F.3d 1136 (9th Cir. 2004) (extrinsic‑fraud exception to Rooker‑Feldman)
  • Mann v. County of San Diego, 907 F.3d 1154 (9th Cir. 2018) (Polinsky exams require parental notice and consent or a court order and parents have right to be present)
  • Wallis v. Spencer, 202 F.3d 1126 (9th Cir. 2000) (parental right to make medical decisions and to be with children during medical procedures)
  • Costanich v. Dep’t of Soc. & Health Servs., 627 F.3d 1101 (9th Cir. 2010) (deliberate fabrication of evidence in child‑protection proceedings violates due process)
  • Greene v. Camreta, 588 F.3d 1011 (9th Cir. 2009) (false statements to obtain custody order; qualified immunity analysis)
  • KRL v. Moore, 384 F.3d 1105 (9th Cir. 2004) (judicial deception cannot be used to procure warrants)
  • Monell v. Dep’t of Soc. Servs., 436 U.S. 658 (U.S. 1978) (municipal liability under § 1983 requires unlawful policy, custom, or deliberate indifference)
  • City of Canton v. Harris, 489 U.S. 378 (U.S. 1989) (standards for failure‑to‑train Monell claims)
  • Saucier v. Katz, 533 U.S. 194 (U.S. 2001) (qualified immunity framework)
Read the full case