Maude v. Barboza, 3:22-cv-03405

Plaintiff Erin K. Maude alleges that on May 7, 2020 Detective Ciro Barboza and a CPS investigator (Francis Magbag) removed her two children from her custody without prior notice or a hearing.
The children had told Maude they were sexually abused by their stepmother; mandatory reporters (including Barboza) referred the matter to CPS and police. Investigations by CPS and the Salinas Police Department allegedly found the abuse reports unfounded.
CPS purportedly concluded Maude failed to provide adequate psychiatric care for the children’s anxiety; the FAC alleges no evidence supported a finding of imminent physical danger.
On May 12, 2020 the Monterey County Superior Court issued a temporary order awarding the father sole custody; Maude alleges she has been unable to regain custody.
Maude sued Barboza under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for violation of her Fourteenth Amendment due process right to parent (failure to provide notice and hearing before removal). Barboza moved to dismiss for failure to state a claim and on absolute and qualified immunity grounds.
The district court denied the motion to dismiss, finding Maude plausibly alleged an unlawful warrantless removal without exigent circumstances and that immunity defenses were not resolved at the pleading stage.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Maude)	Defendant's Argument (Barboza)	Held
Whether Maude plausibly pleaded a Fourteenth Amendment due-process claim for warrantless removal	Maude: children were removed May 7 without notice or hearing; no exigency existed	Barboza: hearings occurred and allegations against him are speculative; no viable claim	Held: Maude plausibly alleged a due-process violation based on the May 7 removal; dismissal denied as to that claim.
Whether Maude can base §1983 liability on the Superior Court custody order	Maude: custody order stems from defendants’ unlawful actions	Barboza: court proceedings address custody; his conduct did not cause the court’s order	Held: Maude failed to allege Barboza caused the Superior Court’s custody decision; no §1983 claim based on that order.
Whether Barboza is entitled to absolute immunity for investigative actions	Maude: not applicable to warrantless removal that was not quasi-prosecutorial	Barboza: investigative actions enjoy absolute immunity (analogizing to social workers)	Held: Absolute immunity not warranted on these facts; court rejects broad application to officer’s alleged conduct.
Whether Barboza is entitled to qualified immunity at pleading stage	Maude: removal violated clearly established parental-rights law	Barboza: reasonable officer could rely on immunity or defenses	Held: Qualified immunity denied at motion-to-dismiss stage; the right was clearly established and factual development is needed.

Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (pleading must state a plausible claim to relief)
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (plausibility and reasonable inference standards for pleading)
Mendiondo v. Centinela Hosp. Med. Ctr., 521 F.3d 1097 (9th Cir. 2008) (Rule 12(b)(6) standard)
James v. Rowlands, 606 F.3d 646 (9th Cir. 2010) (parental-rights protection; warrantless removal only for imminent danger)
Wallis v. Spencer, 202 F.3d 1126 (9th Cir. 2000) (officials may not remove children without court order absent specific articulable imminent danger)
Meyers v. Contra Costa Cnty. Dep’t of Social Servs., 812 F.2d 1154 (9th Cir. 1987) (absolute immunity for social workers performing quasi-prosecutorial functions)
Hardwick v. Cnty. of Orange, 844 F.3d 1112 (9th Cir. 2017) (absolute immunity turns on whether function is quasi-prosecutorial versus investigative)
Rogers v. Cnty. of San Joaquin, 487 F.3d 1288 (9th Cir. 2007) (no exigency where harm is not imminent)
Demaree v. Pederson, 887 F.3d 870 (9th Cir. 2018) (recognizing constitutional violation where removal occurred without reasonable cause of imminent serious harm)
Saucier v. Katz, 533 U.S. 194 (2001) (qualified immunity framework)
Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223 (2009) (qualified-immunity two-step and discretion to decide order of analysis)
Keates v. Koile, 883 F.3d 1228 (9th Cir. 2018) (considerations for resolving qualified-immunity questions at motion-to-dismiss stage)