Jonathan Capp v. County of San Diego
940 F.3d 1046
9th Cir.2019Background
- Jonathan Capp (pro se) and his two minor children sued County of San Diego, its Health & Human Services Agency, and three social workers under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and Monell after a child-welfare investigation during his divorce.
- Social worker Johanna Firth interviewed the children at school; Capp alleges the interviews occurred without his consent and that Firth was evasive in later meetings.
- Capp sent critical letters to the Agency; shortly after, Firth allegedly coerced Capp’s ex-wife to file an ex parte custody application and the Agency initially informed Capp his abuse allegations were "substantiated" and that he was placed on the Child Abuse Central Index (CACI), later corrected as an administrative error.
- The family court denied the ex parte application and rebuked the Agency; the Agency later closed the referral and sent conflicting communications about the CACI listing.
- The district court dismissed most claims on pleading and qualified-immunity grounds but initially allowed a First Amendment retaliation claim; on reconsideration it granted qualified immunity and dismissed all claims. The Ninth Circuit affirmed dismissal of Fourth, Fourteenth, and Monell claims but reversed as to a First Amendment retaliation claim against Firth and held she was not entitled to qualified immunity on that claim.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Firth’s coercion of Capp’s ex-wife to file an ex parte custody application states a First Amendment retaliation claim | Capp argued his criticisms of the Agency were protected speech and that Firth coerced the ex-wife to seek custody to retaliate, chilling ordinary persons | Defendants argued social workers were performing their child-protective duties and had a non-retaliatory, legitimate motive to act | Court: Pleading sufficient. Taking FAC liberally, allegations plausibly show protected activity, an objective chilling effect, and but‑for retaliatory motive; claim survives 12(b)(6) against Firth |
| Whether placement on the Child Abuse Central Index (CACI) supports a retaliation claim | Capp alleged he was informed he was placed on CACI and that this was retaliatory | Defendants pointed to conflicting FAC allegations showing he was not listed (or only briefly) and that any listing was administrative/error | Court: Rejected CACI-based retaliation claim as not plausibly pleaded |
| Whether school interviews of the children state a Fourth Amendment seizure/interrogation claim | Capp alleged children were interviewed at school without parental consent, warrant, or exigency | Defendants argued lack of facts as to restraint, duration, consent and that social workers acted within investigatory role; qualified immunity applies | Court: Dismissed Fourth Amendment claim for failure to plead seizure facts; even if plausible, right not clearly established — qualified immunity would apply |
| Whether Monell and Fourteenth Amendment substantive due process claims survive | Capp alleged municipal policy/custom and deprivation of familial association via investigation and actions | Defendants argued no constitutional violation was plausibly pleaded and the FAC’s municipal-policy allegations were conclusory | Court: Dismissed both: no plausible deprivation of liberty (no custody loss), and Monell pleading inadequate |
Key Cases Cited
- Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223 (2009) (qualified immunity two-step framework)
- Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800 (1982) (qualified immunity doctrine)
- Ashcroft v. al-Kidd, 563 U.S. 731 (2011) (scope of qualified immunity)
- Saucier v. Katz, 533 U.S. 194 (2001) (qualified immunity sequencing)
- Nieves v. Bartlett, 139 S. Ct. 1715 (2019) (but-for causation and probable-cause considerations in retaliation claims)
- Hartman v. Moore, 547 U.S. 250 (2006) (causation standard in retaliation suits)
- O’Brien v. Welty, 818 F.3d 920 (9th Cir. 2016) (First Amendment retaliation elements and analysis)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (plausibility pleading standard)
- Bell Atlantic v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (plausibility and ‘‘obvious alternative explanation’’ principle)
- Greene v. Camreta, 588 F.3d 1011 (9th Cir. 2009) (in‑school child interview/seizure issue; qualified immunity discussion affirmed by Camreta vacatur)
- Camreta v. Greene, 563 U.S. 692 (2011) (vacatur of panel ruling; discussion on legal consequences of preliminary rulings)