Chambers v. Santa Clara County ( 2011 )


Menu:
  •                                                                            FILED
    NOT FOR PUBLICATION                            NOV 02 2011
    MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                      U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
    FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
    DANIEL E. CHAMBERS,                              No. 07-17240
    Plaintiff - Appellant,            D.C. No. CV-05-03308-SI
    v.
    MEMORANDUM *
    SANTA CLARA COUNTY; et al.,
    Defendants - Appellees.
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the Northern District of California
    Susan Illston, District Judge, Presiding
    Submitted October 25, 2011 **
    Before:        TROTT, GOULD, and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.
    Daniel E. Chambers appeals pro se from the district court’s summary
    judgment in his 
    42 U.S.C. § 1983
     action alleging that defendants violated his
    constitutional rights and committed state tort violations in connection with
    dependency proceedings. 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. Tamas v. Dep’t of Soc. & Health Servs., 
    630 F.3d 833
    , 841 (9th
    Cir. 2010). We may affirm on any ground supported by the record, McSherry v.
    City of Long Beach, 
    584 F.3d 1129
    , 1135 (9th Cir. 2009), cert. denied, 
    131 S. Ct. 79
     (2010), and we affirm.
    The district court properly concluded that defendant Dudley was entitled to
    absolute immunity from Chambers’s § 1983 claims concerning the initiation of
    child dependency proceedings. See Beltran v. Santa Clara County, 
    514 F.3d 906
    ,
    908 (9th Cir. 2008) (en banc) (per curiam). Further, Chambers failed to raise a
    genuine dispute of material fact as to whether Dudley made any misrepresentation
    in the dependency petition. See 
    id.
     Accordingly, summary judgment was proper
    on the claims concerning Dudley’s actions in connection with the dependency
    proceedings.
    The district court properly granted summary judgment for the social worker
    defendants on Chambers’s other § 1983 claims because Chambers failed to raise a
    triable dispute as to whether defendants acted “with such deliberate indifference to
    the liberty interest that their actions shock the conscience.” Tamas, 
    630 F.3d at 844
     (citation and internal quotation marks omitted).
    Summary judgment was proper for the remaining defendants on Chambers’s
    § 1983 claims arising from the social workers’ conduct because Chambers failed to
    2                                   07-17240
    raise a triable dispute as to whether the social workers violated his constitutional
    rights or whether these remaining defendants acted with deliberate indifference.
    See id.; see also Scott v. Henrich, 
    39 F.3d 912
    , 916 (9th Cir. 1994) (there is no
    municipal liability if there is no underlying constitutional violation).
    The district court properly granted summary judgment on Chambers’s state
    law claims because Chambers failed to raise a triable dispute as to whether
    defendants were stripped of immunity. See Cal. Gov’t Code §§ 815.2, 820.2, 821.6
    (discussing immunities for public employees and entities); see also id. § 820.21
    (providing exceptions to immunity for juvenile social workers).
    Chambers’s remaining contentions are unpersuasive.
    AFFIRMED.
    3                                    07-17240