defendant is entitled to qualified immunity if his “‘conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known’”
How later courts described this case
- defendant is entitled to qualified immunity if his “‘conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known’”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS DEC 19 2025
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
RYAN SYLVESTER; ANGELA ELLIS, No. 24-3390
D.C. No.
Plaintiffs - Appellants, 2:20-cv-01797-TLN-CKD
v.
MEMORANDUM*
SACRAMENTO COUNTY SHERIFF;
COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO; SCOTT R.
JONES; TIMOTHY MULLIN; DICK
MAH; BOBI GRIGGS,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
Troy L. Nunley, District Judge, Presiding
Argued and Submitted September 18, 2025
San Francisco, California
Before: HAMILTON, R. NELSON, and BUMATAY, Circuit Judges.**
Concurrence by Judge R. NELSON.
Ryan Sylvester and Angela Ellis appeal the dismissal on the pleadings of
their Section 1983 suit stemming from the death of their son, Ryan Ellis. We
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
**
The Honorable David F. Hamilton, United States Circuit Judge for the
Court of Appeals, 7th Circuit, sitting by designation.
reverse the dismissal of the Section 1983 claim against the individual Defendants,
but we affirm the dismissal of Plaintiffs’ Monell claim against the Sacramento
County Sheriff’s Office.
1. The district court dismissed Plaintiffs’ Section 1983 claim against
individual Defendants on the ground that Plaintiffs did not “specify which right
was allegedly violated or the conduct by Defendants that led to the violation of
their rights.” The district court further found that, “[t]o the extent Plaintiffs purport
to assert their right to familial association, Plaintiffs’ allegations are conclusory.”
But “under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a complaint need not pin
plaintiff’s claim for relief to a precise legal theory.” Skinner v. Switzer, 562 U.S.
521, 530 (2011), quoted in Kobold v. Good Samaritan Reg’l Med. Ctr., 832 F.3d
1024, 1038 (9th Cir. 2016). Plaintiffs have sufficiently identified and supported
with factual allegations their legal claim that individual Defendants violated
Plaintiffs’ substantive due process right to family association by wrongfully killing
Ryan while he was in their custody.
This circuit recognizes a substantive due process right for parents in the
companionship of their children, including their adult children. Porter v. Osborn,
546 F.3d 1131, 1136 (9th Cir. 2008).
In reviewing a dismissal on the pleadings, we must treat Plaintiffs’ factual
allegations as true. Narayanan v. British Airways, 747 F.3d 1125, 1127 (9th Cir.
2 24-3390
2014). In their operative Third Amended Complaint, Plaintiffs alleged that
“Defendants’ conduct in wrongfully killing Ryan Ellis . . . constitute[d] a violation
of Plaintiffs’ substantive due process right including the right of familial
relationship with the deceased.” Plaintiffs properly identified themselves as the
parents of Ryan Ellis. Plaintiffs alleged a version of events in which Defendants,
angry because they could not find a gun during a prior search of the home of one of
Ryan’s relatives, crafted a plan to arrest Ryan with the intent to kill him on the
drive to the jail. Plaintiffs contend that Defendants completed this plan by killing
Ryan in a field near where Deputy Griggs reported that she had stopped her car
after Ryan had supposedly jumped from the rear window. Whether Plaintiffs will
be able to offer evidence to support their allegations of official murder is not
before us in this appeal. Plaintiffs alleged enough at the pleading stage to
overcome dismissal of their Section 1983 claim against the individual Defendants
for failure to state a claim.
The district court also found that “Plaintiffs abandoned this argument by not
raising it in their opposition brief.” We disagree. Although Plaintiffs did not
specifically name the right to family association in their brief opposing
Defendants’ motion to dismiss, their theory was clear enough from their complaint,
and Plaintiffs wrote in their brief to the district court that “the current claim is
based on the substitutive [sic] due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.”
3 24-3390
Construed in the context of the entire complaint and brief, Plaintiffs stated their
claim sufficiently, albeit imperfectly. Cf. Walsh v. Nevada Dep’t of Human Res.,
471 F.3d 1033, 1037 (9th Cir. 2006). (“No ‘bright line’ exists to determine
whether an issue has been properly raised below, but ‘a workable standard is that
the issue must be raised sufficiently for the trial court to rule on it.’”). Plaintiffs
preserved this theory for our review.
2. The pleading requirements of Rule 8, Twombly, and Iqbal apply fully to
Monell claims, requiring “sufficient allegations of underlying facts.” Hernandez v.
County of Tulare, 666 F.3d 631, 637 (9th Cir. 2012). Monell claims need not meet
a further-heightened pleading standard. Leatherman v. Tarrant County Narcotics
Intel. & Coordination Unit, 507 U.S. 163, 168 (1993). To impose municipal
liability under Section 1983, plaintiff must show “(1) that [the plaintiff] possessed
a constitutional right of which [s]he was deprived; (2) that the municipality had a
policy; (3) that this policy amounts to deliberate indifference to the plaintiff’s
constitutional right; and, (4) that the policy is the moving force behind the
constitutional violation.” Dougherty v. City of Covina, 654 F.3d 892, 900 (9th Cir.
2011).
Plaintiffs’ Monell claim alleges that Defendants’ failure to speak to Ryan’s
family during the investigation and their failure to provide the final investigative
report to Plaintiffs constitute a “custom, policy, and practice of covering up white
4 24-3390
on black police killings.” Plaintiffs have not identified in their complaint or briefs
any constitutional or legal right to consultation that would be violated by this
alleged practice. Nor have Plaintiffs identified instances of this practice other than
the single incident at issue. Plaintiffs have also failed to identify case law that
supports their contention that this alleged single incident is sufficient to infer an
established practice. On the Monell claim, we are left with only “[t]hreadbare
recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory
statements,” which do not suffice to state a viable claim. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556
U.S. 662, 678 (2009). The district court correctly found that Plaintiffs’ allegations
about a discriminatory policy or practice by the Sacramento County Sheriff’s
Office do not support a viable Monell claim.
3. Defendants raise the defense of qualified immunity on appeal as an
alternative ground for affirmance. The defense does not apply to Plaintiffs’
Section 1983 claims against the individual Defendants, at least on the pleadings.
Plaintiffs allege that officers intentionally killed their son and then staged his body
to conceal their wrongdoing. Treating these allegations as true, as we must at this
pleading stage, Defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity. See James v.
Rowlands, 606 F.3d 646, 650 (9th Cir. 2010) (defendant is entitled to qualified
immunity if his “‘conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or
constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known’”). No
5 24-3390
reasonable public official could think that the alleged murder was lawful. Our
rejection of qualified immunity on the pleadings does not preclude individual
Defendants from asserting qualified immunity later, “[o]nce an evidentiary record
has been developed through discovery.” O’Brien v. Welty, 818 F.3d 920, 936 (9th
Cir. 2016).
4. After dismissing Plaintiffs’ Section 1983 claim, the district court declined
to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claim. Plaintiffs
have not addressed the state law claim in their appellate briefing.
The portion of the district court judgment dismissing Plaintiffs’
Section 1983 claim against the individual Defendants is REVERSED. In all other
respects the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. The case is
REMANDED for further proceedings consistent with this memorandum.
6 24-3390
Sylvester v. Sacramento County Sheriff, et al., No. 24-3390
FILED
DEC 19 2025
R. NELSON, Circuit Judge, concurring: MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
I concur in full with the memorandum disposition. I write separately to
again highlight the need to reconsider our erroneous precedent recognizing a
substantive due process right to companionship with adult children. See Sinclair v.
City of Seattle, 61 F.4th 674, 684–86 (9th Cir. 2023) (R. Nelson, J., concurring);
Hernandez v. City of Los Angeles, 139 F.4th 790, 812–16 (9th Cir. 2025) (en banc)
(R. Nelson, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part).