Catherine Jones v. City & County of San Francisco , 621 F. App'x 437 ( 2015 )

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION OCT 26 2015
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
CATHERINE JONES, No. 13-16478
Plaintiff - Appellant, D.C. No. 3:11-cv-04884-LB
v.
MEMORANDUM*
CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN
FRANCISCO; et al.,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California
Laurel D. Beeler, Magistrate Judge, Presiding
Submitted October 22, 2015**
San Francisco, California
Before: WALLACE, SILVERMAN, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.
Catherine Jones appeals from the district court’s summary judgment in favor
of the City and County of San Francisco, and county social workers, following the
social workers’ removal of her newborn child from her custody without prior
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
judicial authorization. We review the district court’s decision de novo, Mabe v.
San Bernardino County, Dept. of Pub. Soc. Serv., 237 F.3d 1101, 1106 (9th Cir.
2001), and we affirm.
The district court correctly ruled that the defendants were entitled to
qualified immunity because the undisputed facts show that they identified specific,
articulable evidence which provided them with the reasonable belief that the child
was in imminent danger of harm; the scope of their actions was tailored to avert the
specific harm feared; and they followed state law in assuring prompt judicial
review of their actions. Burke v. Cnty. of Alameda, 586 F.3d 725, 731 (9th Cir.
2009); Rogers v. Cnty. of San Joaquin, 487 F.3d 1288, 1294 (9th Cir. 2007); Wallis
v. Spencer, 202 F.3d 1126, 1138 (9th Cir. 2000).
We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised in the
opening brief, or arguments and allegations raised for the first time on appeal or in
the reply brief. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009) (per
curiam).
AFFIRMED.
2 13-16478