1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 JANE DOE, et al., Case No. 22-cv-04948-JSW
8 Plaintiffs, ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND 9 v. DENYING IN PART MOTION TO DISMISS THIRD AMENDED 10 COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA, COMPLAINT Defendant. Re: Dkt. No. 75 11
12 13 Now before the Court for consideration is the motion to dismiss the Third Amended 14 Complaint (“TAC”) filed by Defendant County of Santa Clara (“County”). The Court has 15 considered the parties’ papers and relevant legal authority, and it finds this matter suitable for 16 disposition without oral argument. See N.D. Civ. L.R. 7-1(b). For the following reasons, the 17 Court GRANTS, IN PART, AND DENIES, IN PART, the motion to dismiss. 18 BACKGROUND 19 A. Procedural History. 20 Plaintiffs originally filed suit against their adoptive parents Marissa Clark and Brian 21 Hernandez, their social worker Sharon Jenkins, and various departments of Santa Clara County. 22 (See Dkt. No. 1, Complaint.) 23 The Court dismissed the claims against Clark and Hernandez without prejudice for failure 24 to serve. (Dkt. Nos. 53, 58.) The parties stipulated to substitute the County of Santa Clara as a 25 defendant and to dismiss its departments, which are not separate legal entities capable of being 26 sued. (Dkt. No. 71.) 27 Jenkins and the County jointly moved to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint 1 Plaintiffs to amend their pleadings as to their Monell claim against the County. (Dkt. No. 72, 2 Order Granting Mot. to Dismiss SAC.) 3 Plaintiffs filed the TAC on September 23, 2024. (Dkt. No. 73.) The County again moves 4 to dismiss for failure to state a claim. 5 B. New Allegations in the TAC. 6 The Court set out the factual background of this matter in detail in its previous order 7 granting Defendants’ motion to dismiss the SAC. (See Order Granting Mot. to Dismiss SAC.) 8 The facts, derived from the allegations in the pleadings and the juvenile court records of which 9 this Court took notice, remain largely unchanged in the TAC. 10 Plaintiffs add allegations regarding the County’s visitation policies. Plaintiffs allege that 11 the County has a policy of not visiting foster children in their placements, but instead holds visits 12 at a “visitation center,” where the children have supervised time with their biological parents. (Id. 13 ¶¶ 62, 63.) Plaintiffs allege that the visitation centers are inherently uncomfortable for children 14 and prevent the children from building rapport with their social workers. (Id. ¶ 64.) Plaintiffs 15 claim that between 21 and 40 percent of foster children did not receive social worker visits during 16 the relevant time period. (Id. ¶ 59.) 17 Plaintiffs claim that these policies directly resulted in their harm. In the SAC, Plaintiffs 18 alleged that their social worker, dismissed defendant Sharon Jenkins, visited with dismissed 19 defendants Clark and Hernandez monthly before Jill’s birth. (Dkt. No. 61, SAC, ¶ 25.) In the 20 TAC, Plaintiffs clarify that Jenkins never visited Plaintiffs at the Clark-Hernandez residence. 21 (TAC, ¶¶ 72, 113.) Plaintiffs have no memory of ever speaking with Jenkins, although they do 22 have memories of going to a visitation center to see their biological parents. (Id. ¶ 72.) Plaintiffs 23 allege that, had the County had a policy of home visits, they would have built a rapport with their 24 social worker and disclosed the abuse and/or their social worker would have directly observed 25 abuse in the Clark-Hernandez household. (Id. ¶ 74.) 26 ANALYSIS 27 A. Applicable Legal Standards. 1 fail to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. A court’s “inquiry is limited to the 2 allegations in the complaint, which are accepted as true and construed in the light most favorable 3 to the plaintiff.” Lazy Y Ranch Ltd. v. Behrens, 546 F.3d 580, 588 (9th Cir. 2008). 4 Even under the liberal pleading standard of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2), “a 5 plaintiff’s obligation to provide ‘grounds’ of his ‘entitle[ment] to relief’ requires more than labels 6 and conclusions, and formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do.” Bell 7 Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007) (citing Papasan v. Allain, 478 U.S. 265, 286 8 (1986)). Pursuant to Twombly, a plaintiff cannot merely allege conduct that is conceivable but 9 must instead allege “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Id. at 570. 10 “A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to 11 draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Ashcroft v. 12 Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (citing Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556). 13 If the allegations are insufficient to state a claim, a court should grant leave to amend 14 unless amendment would be futile. Reddy v. Litton Indus., Inc., 912 F.2d 291, 296 (9th Cir. 1990). 15 Amendment may be futile if a plaintiff demonstrates inability or unwillingness to make necessary 16 changes to the complaint. Carrico v. City & Cnty. of San Francisco, 656 F.3d 1002, 1008 (9th 17 Cir. 2011). 18 B. Plaintiffs State a Monell Claim. 19 The County argues that the TAC does not allege the existence of an express or official 20 policy, or a widespread custom or practice, that resulted in violation of Plaintiffs’ constitutional 21 rights. Plaintiffs respond that the County ignores inconvenient allegations in the TAC and that 22 they have sufficiently alleged violation of their constitutional right to social worker supervision 23 and protection from harm inflicted by a foster parent. 24 Under Monell, the County can only be liable for injuries inflicted pursuant to an official 25 government policy or custom. See Monell v. N.Y. Dept. of Soc. Serv., 436 U.S. 658, 690-94 26 (1978). Therefore, in order to state against the County, Plaintiffs must show one of their 27 constitutional rights was violated and that the County had a custom created by those who may be 1 to Plaintiffs’ constitutional rights and that the custom was the moving force behind the 2 constitutional violation. See Blair v. City of Pomona, 223 F.3d 1074, 1079 (9th Cir. 2000). 3 1. Plaintiffs Identify a Protected Right. 4 The County contends that the TAC fails to articulate any constitutional rights which were 5 violated. The County correctly notes that certain of the rights claimed by Plaintiffs are not 6 adequately stated in the TAC, but the Court finds that Plaintiffs adequately allege violation of their 7 rights as children in government care. 8 Social workers owe foster children a duty to protect them from harm and to provide 9 minimally adequate care. See Tamas v. Dep’t of Soc. & Health Servs., 630 F.3d 833, 842 (9th Cir. 10 2010) (citing Carlo v. City of Chino, 105 F.3d 493, 501 (9th Cir. 1997)).
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 JANE DOE, et al., Case No. 22-cv-04948-JSW
8 Plaintiffs, ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND 9 v. DENYING IN PART MOTION TO DISMISS THIRD AMENDED 10 COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA, COMPLAINT Defendant. Re: Dkt. No. 75 11
12 13 Now before the Court for consideration is the motion to dismiss the Third Amended 14 Complaint (“TAC”) filed by Defendant County of Santa Clara (“County”). The Court has 15 considered the parties’ papers and relevant legal authority, and it finds this matter suitable for 16 disposition without oral argument. See N.D. Civ. L.R. 7-1(b). For the following reasons, the 17 Court GRANTS, IN PART, AND DENIES, IN PART, the motion to dismiss. 18 BACKGROUND 19 A. Procedural History. 20 Plaintiffs originally filed suit against their adoptive parents Marissa Clark and Brian 21 Hernandez, their social worker Sharon Jenkins, and various departments of Santa Clara County. 22 (See Dkt. No. 1, Complaint.) 23 The Court dismissed the claims against Clark and Hernandez without prejudice for failure 24 to serve. (Dkt. Nos. 53, 58.) The parties stipulated to substitute the County of Santa Clara as a 25 defendant and to dismiss its departments, which are not separate legal entities capable of being 26 sued. (Dkt. No. 71.) 27 Jenkins and the County jointly moved to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint 1 Plaintiffs to amend their pleadings as to their Monell claim against the County. (Dkt. No. 72, 2 Order Granting Mot. to Dismiss SAC.) 3 Plaintiffs filed the TAC on September 23, 2024. (Dkt. No. 73.) The County again moves 4 to dismiss for failure to state a claim. 5 B. New Allegations in the TAC. 6 The Court set out the factual background of this matter in detail in its previous order 7 granting Defendants’ motion to dismiss the SAC. (See Order Granting Mot. to Dismiss SAC.) 8 The facts, derived from the allegations in the pleadings and the juvenile court records of which 9 this Court took notice, remain largely unchanged in the TAC. 10 Plaintiffs add allegations regarding the County’s visitation policies. Plaintiffs allege that 11 the County has a policy of not visiting foster children in their placements, but instead holds visits 12 at a “visitation center,” where the children have supervised time with their biological parents. (Id. 13 ¶¶ 62, 63.) Plaintiffs allege that the visitation centers are inherently uncomfortable for children 14 and prevent the children from building rapport with their social workers. (Id. ¶ 64.) Plaintiffs 15 claim that between 21 and 40 percent of foster children did not receive social worker visits during 16 the relevant time period. (Id. ¶ 59.) 17 Plaintiffs claim that these policies directly resulted in their harm. In the SAC, Plaintiffs 18 alleged that their social worker, dismissed defendant Sharon Jenkins, visited with dismissed 19 defendants Clark and Hernandez monthly before Jill’s birth. (Dkt. No. 61, SAC, ¶ 25.) In the 20 TAC, Plaintiffs clarify that Jenkins never visited Plaintiffs at the Clark-Hernandez residence. 21 (TAC, ¶¶ 72, 113.) Plaintiffs have no memory of ever speaking with Jenkins, although they do 22 have memories of going to a visitation center to see their biological parents. (Id. ¶ 72.) Plaintiffs 23 allege that, had the County had a policy of home visits, they would have built a rapport with their 24 social worker and disclosed the abuse and/or their social worker would have directly observed 25 abuse in the Clark-Hernandez household. (Id. ¶ 74.) 26 ANALYSIS 27 A. Applicable Legal Standards. 1 fail to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. A court’s “inquiry is limited to the 2 allegations in the complaint, which are accepted as true and construed in the light most favorable 3 to the plaintiff.” Lazy Y Ranch Ltd. v. Behrens, 546 F.3d 580, 588 (9th Cir. 2008). 4 Even under the liberal pleading standard of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2), “a 5 plaintiff’s obligation to provide ‘grounds’ of his ‘entitle[ment] to relief’ requires more than labels 6 and conclusions, and formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do.” Bell 7 Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007) (citing Papasan v. Allain, 478 U.S. 265, 286 8 (1986)). Pursuant to Twombly, a plaintiff cannot merely allege conduct that is conceivable but 9 must instead allege “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Id. at 570. 10 “A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to 11 draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Ashcroft v. 12 Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (citing Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556). 13 If the allegations are insufficient to state a claim, a court should grant leave to amend 14 unless amendment would be futile. Reddy v. Litton Indus., Inc., 912 F.2d 291, 296 (9th Cir. 1990). 15 Amendment may be futile if a plaintiff demonstrates inability or unwillingness to make necessary 16 changes to the complaint. Carrico v. City & Cnty. of San Francisco, 656 F.3d 1002, 1008 (9th 17 Cir. 2011). 18 B. Plaintiffs State a Monell Claim. 19 The County argues that the TAC does not allege the existence of an express or official 20 policy, or a widespread custom or practice, that resulted in violation of Plaintiffs’ constitutional 21 rights. Plaintiffs respond that the County ignores inconvenient allegations in the TAC and that 22 they have sufficiently alleged violation of their constitutional right to social worker supervision 23 and protection from harm inflicted by a foster parent. 24 Under Monell, the County can only be liable for injuries inflicted pursuant to an official 25 government policy or custom. See Monell v. N.Y. Dept. of Soc. Serv., 436 U.S. 658, 690-94 26 (1978). Therefore, in order to state against the County, Plaintiffs must show one of their 27 constitutional rights was violated and that the County had a custom created by those who may be 1 to Plaintiffs’ constitutional rights and that the custom was the moving force behind the 2 constitutional violation. See Blair v. City of Pomona, 223 F.3d 1074, 1079 (9th Cir. 2000). 3 1. Plaintiffs Identify a Protected Right. 4 The County contends that the TAC fails to articulate any constitutional rights which were 5 violated. The County correctly notes that certain of the rights claimed by Plaintiffs are not 6 adequately stated in the TAC, but the Court finds that Plaintiffs adequately allege violation of their 7 rights as children in government care. 8 Social workers owe foster children a duty to protect them from harm and to provide 9 minimally adequate care. See Tamas v. Dep’t of Soc. & Health Servs., 630 F.3d 833, 842 (9th Cir. 10 2010) (citing Carlo v. City of Chino, 105 F.3d 493, 501 (9th Cir. 1997)). A violation occurs when 11 state officials act with such deliberate indifference to the liberty interest that their actions “shock 12 the conscience.” Id. at 844 (quoting Brittain v. Hansen, 451 F.3d 982, 991 (9th Cir. 2006)). 13 Conduct that “shocks the conscience” is “deliberate indifference to a known, or so obvious as to 14 imply knowledge of, danger.” Kennedy v. City of Ridgefield, 439 F.3d 1055, 1064 (9th Cir.2006) 15 (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). As applied in the foster care context, the 16 deliberate indifference standard “requires a showing of an objectively substantial risk of harm and 17 a showing that the officials were subjectively aware of facts from which an inference could be 18 drawn that a substantial risk of serious harm existed and that either the official actually drew that 19 inference or that a reasonable official would have been compelled to draw that inference.” Tamas, 20 630 F.3d at 845. 21 In the TAC, Plaintiffs allege that the County’s policies demonstrate deliberate indifference 22 to danger and failure to provide minimally adequate care. (TAC, ¶¶ 109-110.) The TAC supports 23 a reasonable inference that Plaintiffs and other children experience abusive conduct as a result of 24 the County’s failure to adequately supervise foster care. 25 2. The Other Rights Claimed by Plaintiffs Are Not Adequately Alleged. 26 Plaintiffs claim that the County violated their rights by having a policy of “racial 27 discrimination in removing Latino children from their homes and not placing them with kin.” 1 Plaintiffs fail to identify any “kin” with whom they had a right to be placed. As the Court 2 has noted in its orders dismissing previous iterations of the pleadings, Plaintiffs must allege a 3 “long-standing custodial relationship” with a non-parent relative at the time of placement in order 4 to allege a constitutionally protected relationship. See Mullins v. State of Or., 57 F.3d 789, 794 5 (9th Cir. 1995) (holding Constitution protects existing custodial relationships, not the creation of 6 new family units). Plaintiffs do not include any allegations that such a relationship existed with 7 their biological family members. (See Order Granting Mot. to Dismiss SAC, at 6-7.) 8 Additionally, Plaintiffs have repeatedly denied that they were wrongfully removed from 9 their biological parents’ care. (See Dkt. No. 38, Opposition to Motion to Dismiss First Amended 10 Complaint, at 7.) Plaintiffs cannot state a claim for discrimination in their removal. 11 3. One of the Policies and Customs Identified by Plaintiffs May Support a Claim. 12 Plaintiffs contend that the County had a policy and custom of failing to visit and evaluate 13 children in their placements. Although it is a close call, this allegation passes muster at the 14 pleading stage. 15 Plaintiffs allege that the County had an express policy of not evaluating out-of-county 16 households, but rather required children to meet with their social workers at visitation centers. 17 Plaintiffs contend that this issue was widespread, and that between 21 and 40 percent of children 18 in the County’s foster care system were not visited by social workers. Plaintiffs explain a link 19 between failure to visit and failure to protect children in government care. 20 Plaintiffs further allege that no social worker from the County ever evaluated the Clark- 21 Hernandez home. Plaintiffs allege that the abuse occurring in the home would have been 22 discovered prior to their adoption had the County properly evaluated the home. 23 By the thinnest of margins, the TAC contains enough well-pleaded facts to support an 24 inference that the County could have discovered abuse during the Plaintiffs’ time in foster care 25 had the County had and enforced a policy of home visits, and that the abuse suffered by Plaintiffs 26 as a result was not isolated or sporadic. See Gatlin v. Contra Costa Cnty., No. 21-CV-00370-SI, 27 2024 WL 3873979, at *12 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 16, 2024) (noting, “It is difficult to discern from the 1 claim,” and denying motion to dismiss by thin margin) (quoting Gonzalez v. Cnty. of Merced, 289 2 F. Supp. 3d 1094, 1099 (E.D. Cal. 2017)). 3 4. The Other Policies Claimed by Plaintiffs Are Not Adequately Pleaded. 4 Plaintiffs contend that the County violated their rights of protection from harm and 5 minimally adequate care via five additional policies or customs: (1) disproportionately removing 6 Latina children; (2) failure to train employees in family finding; (3) failing to work with other 7 counties and service providers; (4) failing to properly evaluate adoptive homes; and (5) imposing 8 such high workloads on social workers that proper assessment of families and foster homes is 9 impossible. None of these policies supports a Monell claim in this case. 10 As discussed above, policies (1) and (2) are irrelevant for lack of connection to violations 11 of Plaintiffs’ rights. Plaintiffs cannot state a claim based upon disproportionate removals of Latina 12 children because they do not contend they were wrongfully removed from their biological parents’ 13 care. Plaintiffs also cannot state a claim for failure to train employees in family finding because 14 Plaintiffs did not have a right at the time of their placement to be placed with biological family 15 members with whom they did not have a pre-existing family unit. See City of Los Angeles v. 16 Heller, 475 U.S. 796, 799 (1986) (holding that, in context of Monell claim, “the fact that 17 departmental regulations might have authorized [constitutional harm] is quite beside the point” 18 where the plaintiff did not suffer constitutional harm). 19 Policy (3), failure to work with other counties and service providers, is not adequately 20 pleaded. The TAC includes allegations that the County did not coordinate with Merced County 21 with regard to Plaintiffs’ care. It does not include any allegations that, during the relevant time 22 period, the County had a general practice or custom of not collaborating with other counties. See 23 Trevino v. Gates, 99 F.3d 911, 918 (9th Cir. 1996) (explaining, “[l]iability for improper custom 24 may not be predicated on isolated or sporadic incidents”). 25 Policy (4), failure to properly evaluate homes adoption, fails for the same reason. 26 Plaintiffs point only to their own circumstances, not to a pattern of failures to evaluate that 27 resulted in the violation of their rights. ] Plaintiffs do not allege that high case loads occurred during the relevant time period; that there 2 || was a causal relationship between high case loads and their harm; or that the high case loads 3 || resulted in a policy of insufficiently evaluating homes for placement. 4 CONCLUSION 5 For the foregoing reasons, the County’s motion to dismiss the TAC is GRANTED, IN 6 || PART, AND DENIED, IN PART. Plaintiffs may proceed on their theory that the County violated 7 || their rights to safety and minimally adequate care as children in government care as a result of the 8 County’s policy of not visiting children in their placements. The County shall file an answer by 9 || no later than March 3, 2025. The parties shall appear for an initial case management conference 10 || on March 21, 2025, at 11:00 a.m. and shall submit a joint case management statement by March 1] 14, 2025. a (12 IT IS SO ORDERED. a) 13 Dated: February 11, 2025 om i / ff
j ' JEFFRBY S.| WHI [Piety Disfrict Judge Ph UMS
Oo Z 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28