Michael Hampton; Jacqueline Hampton v. State of California

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
MICHAEL HAMPTON; JACQUELINE
HAMPTON,
Plaintiffs-Appellees,
v.
STATE OF CALIFORNIA; CALIFORNIA
DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND
REHABILITATION; SAN QUENTIN
STATE PRISON; RALPH DIAZ; RONALD
DAVIS, Warden; RONALD
BROOMFIELD; CLARENCE CRYER;
ALISON PACHYNSKI; SHANNON
GARRIGAN; LOUIE ESCOBELL;
MUHAMMAD FAROOQ; KIRK A
TORRES; ESTATE OF ROBERT S.
THARRATT,
Defendants-Appellants.
No. 22-15481
D.C. No. 3:21-cv-03058-LB
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California
Laurel D. Beeler, Magistrate Judge, Presiding
Argued and Submitted May 10, 2023
San Francisco, California
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
FILED
OCT 3 2023
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2
Before: FRIEDLAND and BENNETT, Circuit Judges, and R. BENNETT,**
District Judge.
High-level officials within the California prison system (“Defendants”)
appeal from the district court’s order denying in part their motion to dismiss. We
address most of the arguments presented in this appeal in a published opinion filed
concurrently with this memorandum disposition. Here, we address their familial-
association claim and their requests for judicial notice.
1. This case involves a familial-association claim asserted by a spouse,
rather than a parent or child. “We have not previously held whether a substantive
due process right exists in that context, and other courts of appeals have reached
conflicting conclusions.” Peck v. Montoya, 51 F.4th 877, 893 (9th Cir. 2022).
Plaintiff’s due process right to familial association with her husband is therefore
not “clearly established,” id. at 887 (quotation marks omitted), and Defendants are
entitled to qualified immunity on the familial-association claim. Cf. Villanueva v.
California, 986 F.3d 1158, 1165 n.5 (9th Cir. 2021) (holding that whether a party
had “Fourth Amendment standing” was part of the merits of the constitutional
claim and accordingly must be clearly established “to overcome qualified
immunity”).
** The Honorable Richard D. Bennett, United States Senior District
Judge for the District of Maryland, sitting by designation.

-- 2 of 3 --

3
2. Defendants ask us to take judicial notice of three categories of documents:
(1) news articles describing COVID-19 guidance as it existed in the spring and
early summer of 2020; (2) publications and data about COVID-19 from
governmental agencies; and (3) court transcripts from Plata v. Newsom, N.D. Cal.
No. 01-cv-1351. Defendants seek to use the news articles and COVID-19 data to
support their position that their actions were reasonable, considering their
knowledge at the time. Similarly, Defendants rely on the court transcripts in
support of their argument that the Federal Receiver directed or oversaw the
challenged actions. Defendants’ knowledge and the Receiver’s involvement are
key factual disputes in this case, and it would be inappropriate for us to take
judicial notice of such disputed facts. See Lee v. City of Los Angeles, 250 F.3d
668, 689-90 (9th Cir. 2001) (“[A] court may not take judicial notice of a fact that is
‘subject to reasonable dispute.’” (quoting Fed. R. Evid. 201(b))). To the extent
Defendants rely on the documents for other reasons, we deny the request to take
judicial notice because the documents are “not relevant to the disposition of this
appeal.” Cuellar v. Joyce, 596 F.3d 505, 512 (9th Cir. 2010). Defendants’ request
for judicial notice is accordingly denied.
REVERSED IN PART.

-- 3 of 3 --