Wilson v. Oregon Department of Human Services

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUL 22 2026 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

MELVIA WILSON, No. 23-2617 D.C. No. Plaintiff - Appellant, 3:20-cv-01819-JR v. MEMORANDUM* OREGON DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES; COUNTY OF MULTNOMAH; JENNIFER COBB; NATALIE TAYLOR; HEATHER KILMER; STEPHANIE TING; AMY SNYDER,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Oregon Michael W. Mosman, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted July 22, 2026**

Before: O’SCANNLAIN, SILVERMAN, and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.

* 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). Melvia Wilson (plaintiff) appeals pro se from the district court’s grant of

summary judgment in favor of county defendant Jennifer Cobb and the state

defendants, including the State of Oregon, the Oregon Department of Human

Services (DHS), Natalie Taylor, Heather Kilmer, Stephanie Ting, and Amy

Synder, in an action arising out of Wilson’s role as a foster parent. We have

jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a district court’s

grant of summary judgment, Long v. Sugai, 91 F.4th 1331, 1336 (9th Cir. 2024),

and affirm.

The district court properly granted summary judgment on the claim alleging

that the DHS and State of Oregon violated the state whistleblower law, Oregon

Revised Statutes § 659A.199. Even if plaintiff is protected by the law, she failed

to offer evidence in the district court to establish that the defendants took any

action against her because she reported any violation of law. See Cuddigan-

Placito v. State Accident Ins. Fund, 560 P.3d 715, 726 (Or. Ct. App. 2024) (“As

part of her prima facie case under ORS 659A.199, plaintiff had to show that the

employer’s adverse employment action [was] taken because of or for the reason

that the employee reported a violation of law.”) (internal quotation marks omitted).

Summary judgment was proper on the First Amendment retaliation claim

alleged against defendants Taylor, Kilmer, Ting, and Snyder. Plaintiff failed to

offer any evidence in the district court to establish that the defendants took adverse

2 23-2617 action against her because she expressed matters of public concern. See Anthoine

v. N. Cent. Ctys. Consortium, 605 F.3d 740, 748 (9th Cir. 2010) (setting forth the

elements of a public concern First Amendment retaliation claim); Desrochers v.

City of San Bernardino, 572 F.3d 703, 709 (9th Cir. 2009) (explaining that “the

essential question is whether the speech addressed maters of ‘public’ as opposed to

‘personal’ interest”).

The district court properly granted summary judgment on the First

Amendment claim alleged against county defendant Cobb. Plaintiff did not offer

any evidence in the district court to establish that Cobb had any role in the alleged

adverse actions, which were made by the state agency. See Anthoine, 605 F.3d at

748 (requiring proof that the defendant took adverse action against the plaintiff).

Summary judgment was proper on the procedural due process claim alleged

against defendants Taylor, Kilmer, Ting, and Snyder. Even if plaintiff had a

protected due process interest in fostering a certain number of future children, she

cannot prevail because the state provides an adequate post deprivation remedy in

the form of judicial review of state agency oral and written orders. Raditch v.

United States, 929 F.2d 478, 480 (9th Cir. 1991); Or. Rev. Stat. § 183.310(6)(a)

(defining agency order) & § 183.484 (setting forth the judicial review procedure

for agency orders).

3 23-2617 The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying plaintiff’s request

for discovery. Plaintiff has not established actual and substantial prejudice from

the denial of any discovery. Hallett v. Morgan, 296 F.3d 732, 751 (9th Cir. 2002).

We decline to consider arguments and evidence not presented in the district

court and matters not clearly raised in the opening brief. Padgett v. Wright, 587

F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).

Plaintiff’s motion for miscellaneous relief (Dkt. Entry No. 59) is DENIED.

AFFIRMED.

4 23-2617