FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT SERGIO MOMOX-CASELIS, No. 19-15126 individually, as Guardian Ad Litem, and as Special Administrator of the D.C. No. estate of M.M. on behalf of Maria 2:16-cv-00054- Momox-Caselis, APG-GWF Plaintiff-Appellant, and OPINION MARIA MOMOX-CASELIS; NICOLASA HERNANDEZ, as Special Administrator of the estate of M.M.; KRISTIN WOODS, Co-Special Administrator of the Estate of M.M., Plaintiffs, v. TARA DONOHUE; LISA RUIZ-LEE; KIM KALLAS; JEREMY LAW; SHUUANDY ALVAREZ; LANI AITKEN; OSCAR BENAVIDES; PATRICIA MEYERS; COUNTY OF CLARK, a political subdivision of the State of Nevada, Defendants-Appellees, and 2 MOMOX-CASELIS V. DONOHUE IRENE KOZIKI; CLARK COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF FAMILY SERVICES; ESTATE OF JOAQUIN JUAREZ-PAEZ; BETH ANN NELSON; JOAQUIN JUAREZ-PAEZ; MAIRA JUAREZ-PAEZ, Defendants. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Nevada Andrew P. Gordon, District Judge, Presiding Argued and Submitted September 15, 2020 San Francisco, California Filed February 3, 2021 Before: J. Clifford Wallace, Bridget S. Bade, and Patrick J. Bumatay, Circuit Judges. Opinion by Judge Wallace MOMOX-CASELIS V. DONOHUE 3 SUMMARY * Civil Rights The panel affirmed the district court’s summary judgment in favor of individual employees of the Clark County Department of Family Services and the County in an action brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and state law alleging defendants wrongfully removed plaintiffs’ infant daughter, M.M., from plaintiffs’ home, wrongfully removed M.M. from her foster mother’s home, and then placed her in a neglectful foster home that caused her death. The panel first held that plaintiffs waived several appellate arguments. Plaintiffs waived issues pertaining to the district court’s denial of their request for leave to amend their Second Amended Complaint and their countermotion for summary judgment by failing to challenge the rulings in their opening brief. Plaintiffs waived their claim alleging a failure to train social workers or supervisors by failing to argue the issue in opposition to the County’s summary judgment motion or in their opening brief. Plaintiffs waived their argument that defendant social worker Law was not entitled to discretionary act immunity under Nevada law because the argument was inconsistent with their prior concession in district court. The panel therefore affirmed the district court’s grant of discretionary act immunity to defendant Law. * This summary constitutes no part of the opinion of the court. It has been prepared by court staff for the convenience of the reader. 4 MOMOX-CASELIS V. DONOHUE The panel affirmed the district court’s summary judgment in favor of employees Ruiz-Lee and Donahue on plaintiffs’ claim that they failed to train and supervise social workers. Plaintiffs had failed to identify the procedures that Ruiz-Lee or Donahue allegedly failed to follow and the panel further noted that Donahue was not listed as a defendant in the third claim of the Second Amended Complaint alleging failure to train pursuant to § 1983. The panel determined that plaintiffs’ assertion that the County was liable for ratifying questionable Department policies was waived because plaintiffs failed to present argument or cite evidence in the record to support the ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals