This is the property of the Daily Journal Corporation and fully protected by copyright. It is made available only to Daily Journal subscribers for personal or collaborative purposes and may not be distributed, reproduced, modified, stored or transferred without written permission. Please click "Reprint" to order presentation-ready copies to distribute to clients or use in commercial marketing materials or for permission to post on a website. and copyright (showing year of publication) at the bottom.

Civil Rights
42 U.S.C. Section 1983
Unreasonable Seizure

A.H., a minor, et al. v. Sacramento County Dept. Child, Family Adult Services, et al.

Published: Aug. 25, 2023 | Result Date: Apr. 14, 2023 | Filing Date: Apr. 16, 2021 |

Case number: 2:21-cv-00690-DAD-JDP Bench Decision –  Dismissal

Judge

Dale A. Drozd

Court

USDC Eastern District of California


Attorneys

Plaintiff

Edna V. Wenning
(Law Office of Edna V. Wenning)

Vincent W. Davis
(Law Offices of Vincent W. Davis and Associates)


Defendant

Domenico D. Spinelli
(Spinelli, Donald & Nott)

John R. Whitefleet
(Porter Scott PC)


Facts

Cynthia and Jeffrey Martin are the parents of minors A.H., E.H., and C.G. In February 2019, A.H. fell at school, so staff members inspected him for injury. As part of the inspection, the staff had A.H. strip naked without his parents' presence or consent, which uncovered a burn on the child's leg. Based on A.H.'s description of how the burn occurred, a mandated reporter contacted Child Protective Services. The Sacramento County Department of Child, Family and Adult Services (DCFAS) subsequently removed all three minor children from Cynthia Martin's custody pursuant to a protective custody warrant. Although the children were eventually reunited with Martin, she remained on the Child Abuse Central Index. Martin, along with her children through their guardian ad litem, filed suit against DCFAS, Elk Grove Unified School District, and several other individual defendants.

Contentions

PLAINTIFFS' CONTENTIONS: The plaintiffs contended that the defendants had carried out an unreasonable search and seizure in violation of the Fourth Amendment; had retaliated against them in violation of the First Amendment; had violated their procedural and substantive due process rights; and Monell liability against DCFAS and the District. Moreover, the plaintiffs contended the defendants had intentionally inflicted emotional distress on them.

DEFENDANTS' CONTENTIONS: The defendants denied any wrongdoing or liability. Moreover, the individual defendants contended they were entitled to qualified immunity. The defendants further contended that the plaintiffs' Fourth Amendment rights had not been violated because a warrant had been obtained prior to removing the children.

Result

The court granted the defendants' motions to dismiss.


#141292

For reprint rights or to order a copy of your photo:

Email jeremy@reprintpros.com for prices.
Direct dial: 949-702-5390