Jones v. County of Los Angeles
2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 16725
9th Cir.2015Background
- Jones family alleges Dr. Wang violated their Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment rights and committed torts during G.J.’s investigation for suspected abuse.
- G.J. sustained a complex skull fracture and rib fractures after a fall; initial DCFS report noted injuries consistent with Jill’s fall explanation.
- Dr. Wang, SCAN medical director, ordered routine abuse screening and recommended further tests and hospitalization, implying possible abuse.
- Joneses consented to tests and hospitalization; over the weekend, Dr. Wang implemented measures (sitter, police involvement) to keep G.J. detained.
- DCFS social worker initially did not find imminent danger; hospital hold was not issued until March 8, 2010, after Dr. Wang’s conclusions.
- Dependency proceedings occurred; eventually court found no abuse, and the Joneses filed §1983 and state-law claims against Dr. Wang.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Wang’s conduct violated the Joneses’ rights by seizure of G.J. | Joneses claim Wang detained G.J. without consent or exigent circumstances. | Consent was coerced only by third-party actions; Wang did not cause involuntary consent. | Yes; a jury could find seizure without exigent circumstances under the Joneses’ version. |
| Whether the Joneses’ right to live with their child without state interference was clearly established for qualified immunity. | Right to live together and be free from seizure was clearly established by precedent. | Interim nature of investigation and physician role create novel context not clearly established. | Yes; the right was clearly established under the circuit’s precedent for child-abuse investigations. |
| Whether exigent circumstances justified seizure. | Evidence showed imminent risk warranting detention without a warrant. | DCFS social worker believed hold unnecessary; no imminent danger established. | No; a rational jury could find no exigency to justify detention between March 5–8, 2010. |
| Whether the case falls within clearly established law given Wang’s physician role versus social worker role. | Role distinction does not absolve; law applicable to social workers applies here. | Immunity applies differently when a physician investigates abuse in a hospital. | No; court held the medical role did not immunize; clearly established law governs Wang’s conduct. |
| Whether state-law immunities (reporter’s privilege, discretionary immunity) shield Wang from state claims. | Immunities do not bar federal constitutional claims; possible state immunity defenses fail on federal claims. | Reporter’s privilege and discretionary immunity apply to state-law claims, barring them. | No; reporter’s privilege not applicable since conduct usurped DCFS; discretionary immunity not available for hospital admission discretion. |
Key Cases Cited
- Wallis v. Spencer, 202 F.3d 1126 (9th Cir. 1999) (live-without-interference right; basis for warrantless removal standards)
- Rogers v. County of San Joaquin, 487 F.3d 1288 (9th Cir. 2007) (imminent risk and warrantless removal standards in abuse investigations)
- Mabe v. San Bernardino Cnty., Dep’t of Pub. Soc. Servs., 237 F.3d 1101 (9th Cir. 2001) (no imminent danger; reasonableness of removal without warrant)
- Kirkpatrick v. Cnty. of Washoe, 792 F.3d 1184 (9th Cir. 2015) (infant seizure without judicial authorization; clearly established standard)
- Calabretta v. Floyd, 189 F.3d 808 (9th Cir. 1999) (clearly established rights inquiry and qualified immunity standards)
- Tolan v. Cotton, 134 S. Ct. 1861 (Sup. Ct. 2014) (review of factual disputes in qualified immunity de novo framework)
- Ashcroft v. al-Kidd, 563 U.S. 731 (Sup. Ct. 2011) (qualified immunity protects officers who do not knowingly violate the law)