Williams v. Cnty. of San Diego

• Decision Date: 10 February 2021
• Docket Number: Case No.: 17-cv-815-MMA (JLB)
• Parties: Katy WILLIAMS, et al., Plaintiffs, v. COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO, et al., Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Southern District of California

523 F.Supp.3d 1183

Katy WILLIAMS, et al., Plaintiffs,

v.COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO, et al., Defendants.

Case No.: 17-cv-815-MMA (JLB)

United States District Court, S.D. California.

Signed February 10, 2021

Donnie R. Cox, Law Office of Donnie R. Cox, Carree K. Nahama, Law Office of Carree K. Nahama, San Diego, CA, Paul W. Leehey, Law Office of Paul W. Leehey, Fallbrook, CA, for Plaintiffs.

Kate Dwyre Jones, Jeffrey Miyamoto, County of San Diego Office of County Counsel, San Diego, CA, for Defendant County of San Diego.

Christina Isabel Vilaseca, San Diego County Counsel, San Diego, CA, for Defendant County of San Diego Health and Human Services Agency.

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT;

DENYING MINOR PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT

MICHAEL M. ANELLO, United States District Judge

Katy Williams and Gary Evans ("Adult Plaintiffs"), as well as minors A.C., Am.E., and Aa.E., by and through their Guardian ad Litem, John Garter ("Minor Plaintiffs," and collectively with Adult Plaintiffs, "Plaintiffs") bring this action against the County of San Diego (the "County") asserting civil rights violations pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.¹ See Doc. No. 24 ("FAC."). The County moves for summary judgment in its entirety. See Doc. No. 181. Minor Plaintiffs seek partial summary judgment on their Fourth Amendment claim. See Doc. No. 182. Both parties filed oppositions and replies. See Doc. Nos. 189, 192, 197, 199. 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 GRANTS IN PART and DENIES IN PART the County's motion for summary judgment and DENIES Minor Plaintiffs’ motion for partial summary judgment.

I. BACKGROUND ²

A. Factual History

Williams is the natural mother of Minor Plaintiffs. See Doc. No. Doc. No. 182-3 ("Minor Plaintiffs’ Separate Statement" or "MPSS") No. 1. Evans is the natural father of Am.E. and Aa.E. and "acts in all respects as the father of minor Plaintiff A.C."³ MPSS No. 2. Williams has another minor child, D.C., who is not a plaintiff in this action. See MPSS No. 1.

Between 2013 and January 2016, D.C. was listed as a victim on eleven Emergency Response Referrals to the County. See Doc. No. 181-2 ("Defendant's Separate Statement" or "DSS") No. 8. One report in particular is of consequence. On January 17, 2016, the County received a report from D.C.’s father, which generated an Emergency Response Referral stating that D.C. had a bruise on his forehead and a cut on his lower lip (the "ERR"). See DSS Nos. 1, 2. The ERR also stated that D.C. resided with Williams and Minor Plaintiffs. See DSS No. 4. Minor Plaintiffs were listed under "Victim Information" as being "at risk, sibling abused." Doc. No. 213-30; see also DSS No. 6. As part of the ERR investigation, the County sought to interview Minor Plaintiffs.

1. The Interviews

On January 19, 2016, the County's social workers Miriam Partida ("Partida") and Daniel Bernal ("Bernal" and with Partida, the "Social Workers") went to Minor Plaintiffs’ schools. See MPSS No. 74. Partida was assigned to interview Aa.E. and Am.E. See MPSS No. 73; DSS No. 10. Bernal was assigned to interview A.C. See DSS No. 11; MPSS No. 73. The Social Workers were alone at the respective schools; no law enforcement personnel accompanied them. See DSS No. 14. They did not have parental consent to speak with Minor Plaintiffs. See MPSS No. 84. Nor did they have a court order or warrant. See MPSS No. 86.

Upon arrival, the Social Workers introduced themselves to school officials. See MPSS No. 74. In addition to introducing himself, Bernal presented the County's form letter (the "Letter"). See Doc. No. 213 ("Bernal Depo") at 21:5–9; see also Doc. No. 182-6.⁴ The Letter states that the County representative is permitted to enter school property to investigate child abuse claims. See Doc. No. 182-6. The Social Workers then asked for permission to speak with Minor Plaintiffs, see Bernal Depo at 64:12–16; Doc. No. 213-1 ("Partida Depo") at 39:7–18, and school officials removed Minor Plaintiffs from their classes. See Bernal Depo at 40:9–14; Partida Depo at 164:19–24; DSS No. 12.

It is unclear what took place next.⁵ But as will be explained in greater detail below, Minor Plaintiffs have narrowed their claim to the events immediately before and including the moment they were removed from their classrooms. All subsequent events—disputed or not—are immaterial.

2. The Policy

In 2016, the County had a policy on interviewing children at school (the "Policy"). See Doc. No. 185-2. The Policy provides, in relevant part:

CWS SWs are authorized to interview a suspected victim of child abuse during school hours and to conduct the interview on school grounds.

A SW may interview a child who may be a victim of abuse or neglect without a parent's consent. (This may include other children in the referred family since they may be potential victims.) However, a child who is not an alleged victim or member of the referred family cannot be interviewed without a parent's consent.

When interviewing a child in the course of an investigation of abuse or neglect, the SW must conduct the interview in such a way as to protect the child's legal and implied personal rights. The SW will:

• advise the child of the right to have school personnel present during the interview

• advise the child that (s)he may stop the interview at any time and periodically check with the child during the interview to determine if (s)he is comfortable with continuing the interview. If the child says to stop, then the SW will immediately terminate the interview

• not include law enforcement in the interview

• complete the interview within developmentally-appropriate time limits, which will never exceed 60 minutes.

Policy at 1 (emphasis in original). Similarly, Step 7 of the County's procedure for interviewing a child at school provides the same:

Interview the child per existing policies and procedures.

Additionally, the SW will:

• ensure that the interview with the child does not exceed 60 minutes

• advise the child that (s)he can have school personnel present during the interview, document that the child was given a choice according to PC 11174.3, and document the child's choice

• if the child asked for school personnel to be present, advise that person that the information must be kept confidential and that there are penalties for unauthorized disclosure of the information

• advise the child that (s)he can stop the interview at any time

• not have law enforcement present during the interview.

Policy at 3. Thus, pursuant to the Policy, in order to interview a child—who lives with a suspected abuse or neglect victim—at school, a social worker need only obtain the school's and the child's permission. See Doc. No. 210 at 75, Def. Ex. 11 at 122:16–20.

B. Procedural History

On January 12, 2018, Plaintiffs filed the operative First Amended Complaint. See FAC. They assert two "causes of action." The first "cause of action" actually contains five separate claims based on alleged violations of Plaintiffs’ First, Fourth, and Fourteenth Amendment rights brought pursuant to Monell v. New York Dep't of Soc. Servs. , 436 U.S. 658, 98 S.Ct. 2018, 56 L.Ed.2d 611 (1978) (" Monell claims"). The second "cause of action" seeks injunctive relief.

The Court pauses here to parse out the specific Monell claims against the County. First, Minor Plaintiffs claim that the "policy of seizing and detaining children at school without exigent circumstances (imminent danger of serious bodily harm), court order and/or the knowledge, consent or presence of their parents or legal guardian" violates their Fourth Amendment rights. FAC at ¶ 31(a).

Second, Adult Plaintiffs allege that the "policy of seizing and detaining children at school without exigent circumstances (imminent danger of serious bodily harm), court order and/or the knowledge, consent or presence of their parents or legal guardian" violates their Fourteenth Amendment right to familial association. Id.

Third, Minor Plaintiffs allege that "[t]he policy of causing minor children to be interviewed at school without Court Order, parental consent, parental knowledge, parental presence, and without just and reasonable cause violates the minor Plaintiffs’ Fourth Amendment right against unreasonable searches and seizures." Id. at ¶ 31(b).

Fourth, Adult Plaintiffs claim that "[t]he policy of causing minor children to be interviewed at school without Court Order, parental consent, parental knowledge, parental presence, and without just and reasonable cause" violates their Fourteenth Amendment right to familial association. Id.

Fifth, Plaintiffs claim that "[t]he policy of retaliating against individuals who exercise their constitutional right including to object to, refuse, and/or complain about the actions of the COUNTY, HHSA, and/or their social workers violates the Plaintiffs First Amendment right to assert their freedom of speech rights including the right to object to, refuse, and complain about the conduct and threats and interference by the COUNTY, HHSA, and their social workers." Id. at ¶ 31(c).

The first four claims are repetitive and the fifth is moot.⁶ Upon further review of the entire record, it is clear that Minor Plaintiffs bring a Fourth Amendment claim based on their physical removal from class. And Adult Plaintiffs bring a Fourteenth Amendment familial association claim. The County moves for summary judgment in its favor as to all of Plaintiffs’ claims. See Doc. No. 181. Minor Plaintiffs seek summary judgment as to their Fourth Amendment claim. See Doc. No. 182.

II. LEGAL STANDARDS

A. Summary Judgment

"A party may move for summary judgment, identifying each claim or defense—or the part of each claim or defense—on which summary judgment is sought. The court shall grant summary judgment if the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact...