Roy Cheesman v. City of Ellensburg ( 2021 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAR 22 2021
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ROY D. CHEESMAN; RUTH ANN No. 20-35213
CONDE CHEESMAN,
D.C. Nos. 1:18-cv-03017-SAB
Plaintiffs-Appellants, 1:18-cv-03216-SAB
v.
MEMORANDUM*
CITY OF ELLENSBURG; et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Washington
Stanley A. Bastian, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted March 16, 2021**
Before: GRABER, R. NELSON, and HUNSAKER, Circuit Judges.
Roy D. Cheesman and Ruth Ann Conde Cheesman appeal pro se from the
district court’s summary judgment in their consolidated actions alleging federal
and state law claims arising out of the loss of custody of their children. We have
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Mabe v. San Bernardino
*
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).
Cty., Dep’t of Pub. Soc. Servs., 237 F.3d 1101, 1106 (9th Cir. 2001). We affirm.
The district court properly granted summary judgment for defendants
Margheim and Weed because plaintiffs failed to raise a genuine dispute of material
fact as to whether defendants’ conduct related to the investigation into allegations
of child abuse was without reasonable cause or was negligent. See Wallis v.
Spencer, 202 F.3d 1126, 1138 (9th Cir. 2000) (government officials may remove a
child from parents’ custody without prior judicial authorization if 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”); Rodriguez v.
Perez, 994 P.2d 874, 880 (Wash. Ct. App. 2000) (law enforcement must
investigate child abuse allegations in a “nonnegligent manner”); see also
Kirkpatrick v. County of Washoe, 843 F.3d 784, 790 (9th Cir. 2016) (in context of
removal of child from parental custody, Fourth Amendment right to be free from
unreasonable, warrantless seizure by government officials belongs to the child, not
the parent).
The district court properly granted summary judgment for defendants
Anderson and Brunk because plaintiffs failed to raise a triable dispute as to any of
their claims against these defendants. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c) (setting forth
evidentiary support required in opposing a motion for summary judgment); Bias v.
2 20-35213
Moynihan, 508 F.3d 1212, 1219 (9th Cir. 2007) (affirming summary judgment
where pro se non-moving party presented no evidence creating a genuine dispute
of material fact).
We reject as unpersuasive the Cheesmans’ contentions regarding the Double
Jeopardy Clause, the right to a jury trial, and their equal protection rights.
We do not consider matters 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).
AFFIRMED.
3 20-35213