Williams v. Cnty. of San Diego
| Decision Date | 11 December 2020 |
| Docket Number | Case No.: 17-cv-815-MMA (JLB) |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of California |
| Parties | KATY WILLIAMS, et al., Plaintiffs, v. COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO, et al., Defendants. |
ORDER: (1) DENYING DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO SEAL; AND (2) DENYING MINOR PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
On August 21, 2020, Plaintiffs A.C., Am.E., and Aa.E. ("Minor Plaintiffs") filed a motion for preliminary injunction. See Doc. No. 184. They seek to enjoin Defendant County of San Diego ("the County") from interviewing them at school absent specific allegations of abuse or neglect, parental consent, court order, or exigent circumstances. The County filed an opposition, to which Minor Plaintiffs replied. See Doc. Nos. 195, 198. The Court found this matter suitable for determination on the papers and without oral argument pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7.1.d.1. See Doc. No. 196. For the reasons set forth below, the Court DENIES Minor Plaintiffs' motion for preliminary injunction.
Plaintiff Katy Williams ("Williams") is the natural mother of Minor Plaintiffs. See Doc. No. 24 ("FAC") ¶ 8. Williams has another minor child, D.C., who is not a plaintiff in this action. See id.
There is a long history of reports to the County regarding injuries and concerns of child abuse to D.C.1 In 2014, D.C.'s preschool director reported an injury to D.C.'s ear. See Doc. No. 182-1 at 9.2 After another unexplained injury in August 2014, D.C. was removed from Williams's care. See id. But ultimately Williams regained custody as the allegations of abuse against Williams were deemed "inconclusive." See id. at 10. Between November 2014 and January 2016, D.C.'s father—Jason Clark ("Clark")—made six reports to the County citing various injuries to D.C. See id. at 10-12. At some point after the fifth report, Williams obtained counsel and thereafter refused to allow the County's social workers to interview her children without counsel present.3 See id. at 11-12. The sixth report, which occurred on January 17, 2016, spawned the investigationthat led to this lawsuit and present motion. According to the sixth report, Clark reported a bruise on D.C.'s forehead and a cut on his lip. See id. at 12; Doc. No. 181-1 at 7. Based on the information obtained, the report identified Minor Plaintiffs as "at risk, sibling abused." Doc. No. 181-1 at 7.
Against Williams's wishes, on the afternoon of January 19, 2016, the County's social workers interviewed Minor Plaintiffs at their school. See Doc. No. 184-1 at 8. FAC ¶¶ 22-23. Specifically, social worker Daniel Bernal ("Bernal") went to A.C.'s middle school and instructed staff to remove her from her classroom. See id. at ¶ 22. That same day, Bernal also visited Am.E. and Aa.E.'s elementary school, and "with the assistance of school staff, removed them from their classrooms." Id. at ¶ 23. Once the children were removed from their classrooms, Bernal and social workers Janet Barragan and Miriam Partida interviewed the children. It appears undisputed that these interviews were without parental presence or consent.4 During the interviews, the social workers inquired about Minor Plaintiffs' safety at home, how their parents disciplined them, and whether D.C. "was an active child." Id. at ¶ 25. The interviews lasted between 15 to 30 minutes.5 See Doc. No. 181-1 at 8.
Minor Plaintiffs now seek a preliminary injunction to enjoin the County fromconducting any further interviews with Minor Plaintiffs at school absent specific allegations of abuse or neglect, parental consent, court order, or exigent circumstances.
A preliminary injunction is an extraordinary remedy never awarded as of right." Winter v. Nat. Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 9 (2008). "A plaintiff seeking a preliminary injunction must establish that he is" (1) "likely to succeed on the merits," (2) "likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief," (3) "that the balance of equities tips in his favor," and (4) "that an injunction is in the public interest." Id. at 20. The Ninth Circuit employs a "'sliding scale' approach to evaluating the first and third Winter elements," which dictates that "a preliminary injunction may be granted when there are 'serious questions going to the merits and a hardship balance that tips sharply toward the plaintiff,' so long as 'the other two elements of the Winter test are also met.'" See Ass'n des Eleveurs de Canards et d'Oies du Quebec v. Harris, 729 F.3d 937, 944 (9th Cir. 2013) (quoting Alliance for the Wild Rockies v. Cottrell, 632 F.3d 1127, 1131-32 (9th Cir. 2011)). "Serious questions" are "substantial, difficult and doubtful, as to make them a fair ground for litigation and thus for more deliberative investigation." Republic of the Philippines v. Marcos, 862 F.2d 1355, 1362 (9th Cir. 1988). "Serious questions need not promise a certainty of success, nor even present a probability of success, but must involve a fair chance of success on the merits." Id. (quotation marks omitted).
Further, "[i]n deciding a motion for preliminary injunction, the district court 'is not bound to decide doubtful and difficult questions of law or disputed questions of fact.'" Int'l Molders' and Allied Workers' Local Union No. 164 v. Nelson, 799 F.2d 547, 551 (9th Cir. 1986) (citing Dymo Indus., Inc. v. Tapewriter, Inc., 326 F.2d 141, 143 (9th Cir. 1964)). But, if a court does make factual findings or conclusions "when evaluating the merits of a preliminary injunction motion," those findings and conclusions "are not binding at trial on the merits." See Purdum v. Wolfe, No. C-13-04816 DMR, 2014 WL171546, at *4 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 15, 2014) (quoting Univ. of Tex. v. Camenisch, 451 U.S. 390, 395 (1981)).
On October 21, 2020, the County filed a motion to seal all exhibits submitted in support of its opposition to Minor Plaintiffs' motion. See Doc. No. 193. This was one of several motions to seal filed by the parties. See, e.g., Doc. Nos. 178, 180, 190. The Court then issued an order requesting additional briefing. See Doc. No. 205. In its supplemental brief, the County indicated it no longer wished to seal these exhibits. See id. Although the County did not formally file a withdrawal on the docket, it indicated it intended to do so in its supplemental brief, see id., and subsequently filed an amended lodgment of redacted exhibits. See Doc. No. 208. Accordingly, the Court DENIES the County's motion to seal its exhibits in opposition to this motion as MOOT.
Minor Plaintiffs seek to enjoin the County from interviewing them at school absent "specific allegations of abuse or neglect concerning the specific child, . . . parental consent, a court order, or exigent circumstances." Doc. No. 184-1 at 10. As an initial matter, the Court notes the timing of this motion. This case has been progressing for over three years and is now in the dispositive phase, as both sides have moved for summary judgment. See Doc. Nos. 181, 182. Despite praying for preliminary injunctive relief "based upon separate application" in their First Amended Complaint, see FAC at ¶ 12, Minor Plaintiffs have not previously brought any such motion. Not only is the timing of the instant motion curious, but it is simply inapt as to A.C., who is now 18 years old and no longer in school. See Doc. No. 195 at 8. The request to prevent the County from interviewing her at school is therefore MOOT and so for that reason, the Court DENIES the motion as it relates to A.C.
With that in mind, the Court addresses each of the Winter factors as they relate toMinor Plaintiffs Am.E. and Aa.E.6
Minor Plaintiffs bear the burden of establishing the merits of their claim on a motion for preliminary injunction. See JL Beverage Co., LLC v. Jim Bean Brands, Co., 828 F.3d 1098, 1105 (9th Cir. 2016). Yet their only argument in support of this key element is reference to their concurrently filed motion for partial summary judgment. See Doc. No. 184-1 at 12. This once again raises the Court's timing concern, albeit in a different way. The Court doubts the appropriateness of weighing the likelihood of Minor Plaintiffs' success on the merits while the parties' cross motions for summary judgment are under submission. As such, the Court proceeds with caution.
Minor Plaintiffs only seek summary judgment on, and a preliminary injunction related to, their Fourth Amendment claim. Because this claim is against the County under a theory of municipal liability, to succeed on the claim they must meet the standard set forth in Monell v. New York Dep't of Soc. Servs., 436 U.S. 658, 694 (1978). Under Monell, Minor Plaintiffs must first establish that they were deprived of a constitutional right. See Dougherty v. City of Covina, 654 F.3d 892, 900 (9th Cir. 2011) (citing Plumeau v. Sch. Dist. No. 40 Cnty. of Yamhill, 130 F.3d 432, 438 (9th Cir. 1997)). To this point, Minor Plaintiffs argue the interviews constituted an unreasonable seizure in violation of the Fourth Amendment. "The Fourth Amendment protects a child's right to be free from unreasonable seizure by a social worker." Dees v. Cty. of San Diego (In re Dees), 960 F.3d 1145, 1154 (9th Cir. 2020) (). That said, "[a] seizure triggering the Fourth Amendment's protections occurs only when government actors have, by means of physical force or show of authority, in some way restrained the liberty of a citizen." Capp v. Cty. of San Diego, 940 F.3d 1046, 1059 (9th Cir. 2019) (quoting Graham v. Connor,490 U.S. 386, 395 n.10 (1989)) (internal citation and quotation marks omitted).
"When the actions of the [official] do not show an unambiguous intent to restrain or when an individual's submission to a show of...
To continue reading
Request your trial