United States v. 2020-05-19 | 19-55645 | LYNDSAY DAVIDSON V. COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES | nonprecedential | memorandum disposition |

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

LYNDSAY DAVIDSON, an Individual; et
al.,

Plaintiffs-Appellants,

v.

COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, by and
through The Los Angeles County
Department of Children and Family
Services; et al.,

Defendants-Appellees.

No. 19-55645

D.C. No.
8:16-cv-01693-AG-JCG

MEMORANDUM
*

Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
Andrew J. Guilford, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted May 15, 2020
**

Pasadena, California

Before: EBEL,
***
WARDLAW, and HUNSAKER, 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).

***
The Honorable David M. Ebel, United States Circuit Judge for the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, sitting by designation.
FILED

MAY 19 2020

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

2
Lyndsay Davidson, Brandon Salinas, and their four children sued six
employees of the Department of Children and Family Services (“the DCFS
Defendants”) and Los Angeles County under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for violation of
their constitutional rights to familial association, arguing that the DCFS
Defendants made deliberate misrepresentations to the juvenile court during
dependency proceedings to bolster their case for removal of the children from their
family home. At summary judgment, the district court found the family failed to
create a triable issue as to the County’s liability and that the DCFS Defendants
were entitled to qualified immunity. Plaintiffs appeal as to the DCFS Defendants
only. As the parties are familiar with the facts, we do not recount them here. We
have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo, Lojek v. Thomas,
716 F. 2d 675, 677 (9th Cir. 1983), and we affirm.
The district court did not err in granting summary judgment on qualified
immunity grounds. We have held that government officials are not entitled to
qualified immunity if their conduct violates the clearly established right to be free
from judicial deception during removal proceedings. See Greene v. Camreta, 588
F.3d 1011, 1034–35 (9th Cir. 2009), vacated in part on other grounds by Camreta
v. Greene, 563 U.S. 692, 713–14 (2011). Here, Plaintiffs submitted no evidence to
support their claims of judicial deception, let alone evidence sufficient to create a
genuine dispute of material fact. The deposition testimony quoted in Plaintiffs’

3
opposition to summary judgment was never provided to the district court. Even
putting aside this fatal oversight, the quoted deposition testimony fails to create a
triable issue that any DCFS Defendant made a deliberately false statement to the
juvenile court.
AFFIRMED.