Valerie Rogan, a single woman, as her separate estate doing business as Hart’s Day Care v. DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL & HEALTH SERVICES, STATE OF WASHINGTON an Agency of the State…

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent*
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
VALERIE ROGAN, a single woman, as
her separate estate doing business as Hart’s
Day Care,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL &
HEALTH SERVICES, STATE OF
WASHINGTON an Agency of the State of
Washington; STATE OF WASHINGTON
DEPARTMENT OF EARLY
LEARNING, formerly known as State of
Washington, Division of Child Care and
Early Learning (DCCEL); PATRICIA
ESLAVA VESSEY, Licensing Supervisor;
HARRIETT MARTIN, DCCEL Licensor;
SANDRA DURON, CPS Investigator;
MARY ROACH, DCCEL Licensor,
Defendants - Appellees.
No. 09-35516
D.C. No. 2:08-cv-00794-RAJ
MEMORANDUM *
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Washington
Richard A. Jones, District Judge, Presiding
FILED
MAR 12 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 3 --

The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision**
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
2
Submitted March 9, 2010**
Seattle, Washington
Before: TASHIMA, FISHER and BERZON, Circuit Judges.
Valerie Rogan appeals the district court’s summary judgment for defendants.
1. Rogan’s amended brief is accepted, and appellees’ motion to strike
Rogan’s original brief is denied as moot.
2. Rogan does not dispute that Patricia Eslava Vessey is entitled to absolute
immunity to the extent that the claims against her are based on her decision to
initiate license revocation proceedings. See Miller v. Gammie, 335 F.3d 889, 898
(9th Cir. 2003) (en banc). Rogan’s suggestion that Eslava Vessey participated in,
or even knew about, the misdating of letters finds no support in the record.
3. To the extent Rogan’s due process claims against Harriett Martin are
premised on the deliberate fabrication of evidence, there was no evidence that
Martin misled the relevant decisionmakers. In any event, due process did not
require that Rogan be given an opportunity to contest the findings at the time they
were made because she had not yet been deprived of property. Despite the delayed
notice, due process was satisfied when Rogan was able to contest the findings at
her administrative hearing. Because Rogan has not stated a constitutional claim,

-- 2 of 3 --

3
the district court properly dismissed her case. See Saucier v. Katz, 533 U.S. 194,
201 (2001).
AFFIRMED.

-- 3 of 3 --