Sergio Momox-Caselis v. Tara Donohue, 987 F.3d 835

Background

In 2013 Clark County Department of Family Services removed M.M. and siblings from parents Sergio and Maria Momox‑Caselis for long‑term neglect; a state family court approved removal.
M.M. was first placed with the Hernandez foster family; after abuse reports the Department removed M.M. and revoked that license.
In May–June 2014 Joaquin and Maira Juarez‑Paez obtained a foster license and, as the only available placement, the Department placed M.M. with them in June 2014.
In October 2014 Joaquin administered an overdose of M.M.’s allergy medication; M.M. died, Joaquin committed suicide and left a note claiming he accidentally killed her.
The Momox‑Caselis family sued County officials and foster parents in state court (removed to federal court), asserting federal §1983 claims (due process / seizure, Monell, failure to train), Nevada negligence, and wrongful death; several defendants were later dismissed or stipulated out.
The district court granted summary judgment for the County (holding plaintiffs failed to show deliberate indifference, identify a Monell policy, or prove failure to train or causation; state actors entitled to discretionary‑act immunity; Joaquin’s act superseded liability); the Ninth Circuit affirmed.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Lawful removal/seizure (Fourteenth/Fourth Amendment)	Removal was wrongful and violated parents’/child’s due process rights; facts disputed about exigency and procedure	Removal was justified by neglect; state court authorized removal; plaintiffs failed to cite law or facts showing due‑process violation	Affirmed for County — plaintiffs failed to present a genuine dispute that removal was wrongful or lacked due process
Monell / due‑process claim re: licensing, placement, supervision (special relationship or state‑created danger)	County policies/practices and licensing/placement decisions created/affirmatively placed M.M. in danger; Department was deliberately indifferent	County showed rigorous licensing, supervision, and that Juarez‑Paez were licensed before placement; plaintiffs point to no specific policy or deliberate indifference	Affirmed — no evidence of deliberate indifference; neither special‑relationship nor state‑created danger standards satisfied
Failure to train (§1983)	County failed to train supervisors/social workers (causing constitutional violations)	Plaintiffs did not identify training deficiencies and conceded no specific failures; no evidence of inadequate training	Waived / Affirmed — plaintiffs failed to preserve or support failure‑to‑train claim; summary judgment appropriate
Nevada negligence / wrongful death; discretionary‑act immunity; causation	County negligently placed/supervised M.M.; responsible for death	County argued discretionary‑act immunity applies; Joaquin’s intentional or accidental overdose was an intervening or unforeseeable act	Affirmed — plaintiffs failed to show breach or causation; discretionary‑act immunity applies; Joaquin’s conduct was a superseding or unforeseeable cause

Key Cases Cited

Monell v. Dept. of Soc. Servs. of City of New York, 436 U.S. 658 (1978) (municipal liability requires a policy or custom causing constitutional violation)
Wallis v. Spencer, 202 F.3d 1126 (9th Cir. 2000) (state may remove children without court order only when imminent danger exists)
Tamas v. Dep’t of Soc. & Health Servs., 630 F.3d 833 (9th Cir. 2010) (foster‑child special‑relationship due‑process claim requires deliberate indifference)
Henry A. v. Willden, 678 F.3d 991 (9th Cir. 2012) (elements for state‑created danger claim)
Connick v. Thompson, 563 U.S. 51 (2011) (deliberate indifference is a stringent municipal‑liability standard)
Daniels v. Williams, 474 U.S. 327 (1986) (negligence alone does not establish a due‑process violation)
Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (1986) (standard for genuine factual dispute at summary judgment)
Sandoval v. Cty. of Sonoma, 912 F.3d 509 (9th Cir. 2018) (review of district court summary judgment de novo)