holding that a prior published opinion could be read narrowly or 28 expansively and was too ambiguous to constitute “clearly established law” for purposes of qualified immunity
How later courts described this case
- holding that a prior published opinion could be read narrowly or 28 expansively and was too ambiguous to constitute “clearly established law” for purposes of qualified immunity
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
1
2
3
4
5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
6 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
7
8 ANGELINA NUNES, individually and as CASE NO. 1:19-CV-0204 AWI BAM
guardian ad litem for minor children D.X.
9 and L.X., et al.,
ORDER FOLLOWING NINTH
10 Plaintiffs CIRCUIT REMAND AND DISMISSING
DEFENDANTS
11 v.
12 CARRIE STEPHENS, et. al, (Doc. No. 49)
13 Defendants
14
15
16 This 42 U.S.C. § 1983 case stems from the allegedly unauthorized and unconstitutional
17 access of Plaintiffs’ confidential juvenile records by Defendants.
18 On August 22, 2019, the Court granted in part and denied in part two Rule 12(b)(6)
19 motions to dismiss. See Doc. No. 27. In pertinent part, the Court denied the individual
20 Defendants qualified immunity for claims based on the Fourth Amendment in light of the Ninth
21 Circuit case of Gonzalez v. Spencer, 336 F.3d 832 (9th Cir. 2003). See id. The Court concluded
22 that Gonzalez was not thoroughly reasoned but appeared to have engaged in a § 1983 analysis and
23 to have found the Fourth Amendment. See id. The Court also noted that other district courts had
24 found that Gonzalez did not form a sufficient basis to be considered clearly established law. See
25 id. The Court explained that it was possible that the Ninth Circuit may read Gonzalez differently
26 from the Court or differently from other district courts, that the Court was bound to follow
27 Gonzalez as the Court interpreted the case, and that the denial of qualified immunity was
28 immediately appealable. See id. Defendants appealed the denial of qualified immunity.
1 On December 29, 2020, the Ninth Circuit issued an opinion that reversed this Court’s
2 denial of qualified immunity. See Nunes v. Arata, Swingle, Van Egmond & Goodwin (PLC), 983
3 F.3d 1108, 1110 (9th Cir. 2020). The Ninth Circuit held that Gonzalez did not clearly establish a
4 constitutional privacy right in the juvenile records at issue.1 See id. at 1114. The Ninth Circuit
5 remanded the matter to this Court for further proceedings consistent with its opinion. See id.
6 Following the denial of a petition for en banc review, the Ninth Circuit’s mandate issued on May
7 12, 2021. See Doc. No. 63.
8 Consistent with the Ninth Circuit’s opinion, the Court grants qualified immunity to
9 individual Defendants Carrie Stephens, Brad Swingle, and Amanda Heitlinger on Plaintiffs’
10 Fourth Amendment claim. See Nunes, 983 F.3d at 1114. Defendants Carrie Stephens, Brad
11 Swingle, and Amanda Heitlinger will be dismissed from this case. Additionally, prior to
12 Defendants’ appeal, Plaintiffs filed a First Amended Complaint. Following the appeal and grant
13 of qualified immunity, numerous parties and allegations in the First Amended Complaint are now
14 superfluous. Under these circumstances, the Court finds that it is appropriate for the Plaintiffs to
15 file a second amended complaint that eliminate parties and claims that have been finally
16 dismissed, and to remove allegations that are no longer relevant.
17
18 ORDER
19 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
20 1. Pursuant to the Ninth Circuit’s opinion (Doc. No. 49), Defendants Carrie Stephens, Brad
21 Swingle, and Amanda Heitlinger are granted qualified immunity and DISMISSED from
22 this case;
23
24 1 The Court notes that the Ninth Circuit did not address this Court’s conclusion that Gonzalez conducted a § 1983
analysis or, more importantly, what Gonzalez actually holds or what constitutional principles the case actually stands
25 for. A concurrence argued that en banc review was appropriate in order to address Gonzalez and whether
constitutionally protected privacy rights exist as to the juvenile rights at issue. See Nunes, 983 F.3d at 1114-15.
26 Regrettably, the Ninth Circuit declined to grant en banc review. Accordingly, the Court reads Nunes to mean simply
that Gonzalez was and continues to remain too opaque and vague to be considered clearly established law for purposes
27 of the Fourth Amendment or constitutionally protected privacy interests in juvenile records. Cf. Apodaca v.
Raemisch, 864 F.3d 1071, 1078-79 (10th Cir. 2017) (holding that a prior published opinion could be read narrowly or
28 expansively and was too ambiguous to constitute “clearly established law” for purposes of qualified immunity).
1 Within fourteen (14) days of service of this order, Plaintiffs shall file a second amended
2 complaint consistent with this order; and
3 |3. Any response to the second amended complaint shall be filed within twenty-one (21) days
4 of service of the second amended complaint.
5
6 IT IS SO ORDERED. □□
|Dated: _May 14, 2021 _ 7 □□ 7 Cb Lec
SENIOR DISTRICT JUDGE
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28