Wanda Nelson v. Santa Barbara Cty Sheriff's ( 2021 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FEB 12 2021
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
WANDA NELSON, No. 19-56324
Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No.
2:18-cv-10218-JFW-PLA
v.
SANTA BARBARA COUNTY SHERIFF'S MEMORANDUM*
OFFICE; et al.,
Defendants-Appellees,
and
DOES, Santa Barbara County Sheriffs
Office Doe Deputies 1-5 and Santa Barbara
County Doe Deputy District Attorneys 6-
20,
Defendant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
John F. Walter, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted February 10, 2021**
Pasadena, California
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
Before: TALLMAN, CALLAHAN, and LEE, Circuit Judges.
Wanda Nelson was a caregiver for Heidi Good, who was dependent on a
ventilator to breathe. When the ventilator became disconnected and Heidi died,
Nelson was indicted by a grand jury for murder. After a jury acquitted her of the
murder charges and her conviction for manslaughter was reversed on appeal,
Nelson brought this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action against the prosecuting attorneys and
the county agents who had investigated the crime and prosecuted her. The district
court denied Nelson an extension of time in which to conduct discovery and
granted summary judgment for the defendants. Nelson filed a timely notice of
appeal. Nelson has not shown that additional discovery would have precluded
summary judgment or that there are any outstanding material issues of fact.
Accordingly, the district court’s grant of summary judgment is affirmed.1
1. Nelson has not shown that the district court abused its discretion in
denying her an extension of time in which to conduct discovery. The denial of a
Rule 56(d) motion is reviewed for abuse of discretion. Maloney v. T3Media, Inc.,
853 F.3d 1004, 1009 (9th Cir. 2017). To demonstrate an abuse, Nelson must show
that she diligently pursued her discovery opportunities and that allowing additional
discovery would have precluded summary judgment. Panatronic USA v. AT&T
1
Because the parties are familiar with the facts, we restate only those
necessary to explain our decision.
2
Corp., 287 F.3d 840, 846 (9th Cir. 2002). It does not appear that additional
discovery would have altered the district court’s grounds for granting summary
judgment. Therefore the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying her
Rule 56(d) motion.
2. Nelson has not shown that there is any outstanding material issue of fact
on her Brady claims. A Brady claim requires, at a minimum, the suppression of
favorable evidence from the defense at trial that harmed the accused. See Mellen v.
Winn, 900 F.3d 1085, 1096 (9th Cir. 2018). Nelson alleged Brady violations for
materials concerning: (a) Heidi’s fear of her husband who had grown tired of the
financial burden of her care; (b) the ventilator hose on Heidi’s respiratory machine
becoming disconnected; (c) Nelson’s routine practice of leaving Heidi in Heidi’s
mother’s care when Nelson ran errands; and (d) prior problems with the
refrigeration units which housed Heidi’s body. The district court found that
materials concerning the first two areas, although not disclosed to the grand jury,
were disclosed and presented at trial. It found that information concerning the
refrigeration units was not available until trial and was presented by the defense at
trial. The district court found that Nelson was fully aware of her practice of
leaving Heidi to run errands outside the home and, thus, there was no Brady
violation. Nelson’s Brady claims fail because although she argues that certain
materials should have been presented to the grand jury, she does not deny that the
3
information was available to her at trial. See United States. v. Williams, 504 U.S.
36, 53 (1992) (holding that under federal law, the government is not required to
present exculpatory evidence to the grand jury).
3. Nelson has not shown that there is a material issue of fact on her
fabrication of evidence claim. In order to show fabrication based on circumstantial
evidence, Nelson must show either that the defendants continued their
investigation despite the fact that they knew or should have known she was
innocent, or that defendants used investigative techniques that were so coercive
and abusive that they were likely to yield false information. Devereaux v. Abbey,
263 F.3d 1070, 1076 (9th Cir. 2001). The California Court of Appeal found that it
was reasonable for the defendants to suspect Nelson. See People v. Nelson, No.
B290806, 2019 WL 2206207 (Cal. Ct. App. May 22, 2019). Nelson cites the
differences between Dr. Hawley’s testimony before the grand jury and his
testimony at trial, as well as Dr. Anthony’s assertion that he was pressured to
change his view of the cause of death. But even viewing these allegations in a
light most favorable to Nelson, they do not show that defendants used coercive or
abusive investigative techniques that were likely to create unreliable information.
4. Nelson has not shown that there is a material issue of fact concerning her
claims that the defendants failed to investigate other suspects. These claims
require a demonstration of an agreement or meeting of minds to violate her
4
constitutional rights. Crowe v. County of San Diego, 608 F.3d 406, 440 (9th Cir.
2010). Nelson claims that she was denied equal protection because she is African-
American. However, the record shows that Heidi’s husband was not considered a
suspect because he was not home at the time of her death. It also shows that the
investigation did not focus solely on Nelson, as both Nelson and Heidi’s mother
were indicted for the homicide. The record shows that it was reasonable for the
defendants to suspect Nelson. See Nelson, 2019 WL 2206207.
5. Nelson has not shown that there is a material issue of fact concerning her
claim of conspiracy. To establish a claim of conspiracy Nelson had to demonstrate
the existence of an agreement or meeting of minds. See Crowe, 606 F.3d at 440.
As noted, the record shows that Heidi’s death was suspicious, and that Nelson was
a suspect, but there is nothing in the record to suggest that defendants prosecuted
Nelson because of her race.
6. Finally, as we affirm the award of summary judgment on Nelson’s claims
against the individual defendants, we also affirm the district court’s grant of
summary judgment against Nelson on her Monell claims against the Santa Barbara
County Sheriff’s Office and the Santa Barbara County District Attorney’s Office.
See Hall v. City of Los Angeles, 697 F.3d 1059, 1070 (9th Cir. 2012).
5
The district court’s grant of summary judgment is AFFIRMED.2
2
Because we affirm the district court’s decision on its merits, we do not
address the defendants’ claims for immunity.
6