-
FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION SEP 04 2015 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT ROYCE KEITH WILLIAMS, No. 13-55044 Plaintiff - Appellant, D.C. No. 5:07-cv-01632-ABC-OP v. MEMORANDUM* NICOLE STOLAR; et al., Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California Audrey B. Collins, District Judge, Presiding Submitted August 25, 2015** Before: McKEOWN, CLIFTON, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges. Royce Keith Williams appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment in his
42 U.S.C. § 1983action alleging violations of his Fourteenth Amendment due process rights arising out of the removal of his minor son without prior judicial authorization. We have jurisdiction under
28 U.S.C. § 1291. We * 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). review de novo. Mabe v. San Bernardino Cnty., Dep’t of Pub. Soc. Servs.,
237 F.3d 1101, 1106 (9th Cir. 2001). We may affirm on any basis supported by the record. McSherry v. City of Long Beach,
584 F.3d 1129, 1135 (9th Cir. 2009). We affirm. Summary judgment was properly granted to Stolar and Fisher because they were entitled to qualified immunity, as it would not have been clear to every reasonable social worker and police officer that the removal of Williams’s minor son was unlawful under the circumstances presented. See Ashcroft v. al-Kidd,
131 S. Ct. 2074, 2080, 2083 (2011) (explaining two-part test for qualified immunity); see also Wallis v. Spencer,
202 F.3d 1126, 1138 (9th Cir. 2000) (government officials cannot remove a child from a parent’s custody without prior judicial authorization unless they possess information at the time of the seizure that establishes “reasonable cause to believe that the child is in imminent danger of serious bodily injury and that the scope of the intrusion is reasonably necessary to avert that specific injury”). 2 13-55044 We do not consider issues or arguments not specifically and distinctly raised and argued in the opening brief, or arguments and allegations raised for the first time on appeal. See Padgett v. Wright,
587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009) (per curiam). AFFIRMED. 3 13-55044
Document Info
Docket Number: 13-55044
Citation Numbers: 616 F. App'x 253
Filed Date: 9/4/2015
Precedential Status: Non-Precedential
Modified Date: 1/13/2023