Marshall v. County of San Diego
238 Cal. App. 4th 1095
| Cal. Ct. App. | 2015Background
- J.J., born 2003, was placed with Rita Marshall as a dependent; Marshall cared for him ~2.5 years and sought to adopt him.
- In June 2006 the County social workers filed an ex parte application that led the juvenile court to vacate J.J.’s placement with Marshall; Marshall filed objections and later writ petitions.
- This court (Rita M. I) vacated the July 20, 2006 order, holding Marshall had not received sufficient notice and ordered a new hearing; by then the Agency had already removed J.J. and placed him elsewhere.
- Marshall sued County and individual social workers under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging: (1) deprivation of due process by termination of adoptive placement without adequate notice/hearing, (2) presentation of false or fabricated evidence (judicial deception), and (3) municipal liability via County policy or custom.
- At summary judgment the trial court concluded social workers were entitled to qualified immunity on all § 1983 claims and entered judgment for the County; Marshall appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial court could allow successive summary motions | Marshall: successive motions were improper under CCP §437c(f)(2) / Le Francois | County: court has inherent authority; Le Francois permits court to allow successive motions | Court: no error — trial court has inherent authority to permit successive motions |
| Whether social workers violated due process by failing to give constitutionally adequate notice of the June 28 ex parte hearing | Marshall: June 19 oral notice and lack of notice of June 28 ex parte hearing denied her statutory and constitutional notice / full hearing rights | Social workers: Johanesen gave verbal notice June 19 per Welf. & Inst. Code §366.26(n), hearing on objections occurred before actual removal; no clearly established violation | Held: qualified immunity — no clearly established constitutional violation in those circumstances |
| Whether a social worker’s late delivery of the July 20 addendum report violated a clearly established right to a “full hearing” | Marshall: receiving report only at start of hearing denied meaningful opportunity to prepare | Social workers: even if unfair, plaintiff failed to show right was clearly established that report must be delivered earlier | Held: qualified immunity for social worker (Harmelink) — right not clearly established as pleaded |
| Whether social workers committed judicial deception (deliberate falsity or reckless disregard) such that qualified immunity is lost | Marshall: ex parte application and addendum contained knowingly false or recklessly made statements that led to termination of placement | Social workers: alleged statements are true or not shown to be known false; no causal showing that fabricated statements caused termination | Held: although constitutional right to be free from judicial deception was clearly established, no evidence that the social workers knowingly or recklessly fabricated statements that caused termination; qualified immunity applies |
| Whether County is liable under Monell for policies/customs causing constitutional violations | Marshall: County custom/policy (e.g., not furnishing reports to caregivers) caused the due process injury | County: Marshall failed to identify an unconstitutional policy or show the policy was the moving force behind the injury | Held: summary judgment for County — no evidence County custom was moving force producing constitutional violation |
Key Cases Cited
- Carroll v. Carman, 135 S.Ct. 348 (2014) (qualified immunity standard: official entitled to immunity unless violation of clearly established right)
- Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223 (2009) (qualified immunity analysis and early resolution of immunity questions)
- Monell v. Department of Social Services, 436 U.S. 658 (1978) (municipal liability requires policy or custom causing constitutional tort)
- Bryan County Commissioners v. Brown, 520 U.S. 397 (1997) (rigorous causation and culpability required for municipal §1983 liability)
- Devereaux v. Abbey, 263 F.3d 1070 (9th Cir. 2001) (clearly established right against governmental presentation of false evidence)
- Greene v. Camreta, 588 F.3d 1011 (9th Cir. 2009) (application of deception precedents to child-protective proceedings)
- Chism v. Washington State, 661 F.3d 380 (9th Cir. 2011) (elements of judicial deception claim: deliberate falsehood/reckless disregard and causation)
- Costanich v. Dep’t of Social & Health Services, 627 F.3d 1101 (9th Cir. 2010) (discussing deliberate fabrication in civil child welfare context)