Steven Louis Daurio v. MIKE FAUST, Director of the Department of Child Safety

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
STEVEN LOUIS DAURIO,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
MIKE FAUST, Director of the Department
of Child Safety,
Defendant-Appellee,
and
ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF CHILD
SAFETY; GREG MCKAY; ELIZABETH A.
REYNOLDS; JENNIFER PASSMORE;
PAULA CARGILL; UNKNOWN PARTIES,
Defendants.
No. 22-15248
D.C. No. 2:18-cv-03299-GMS
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Arizona
G. Murray Snow, Chief District Judge, Presiding
Submitted October 16, 2023**
* 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).
FILED
OCT 16 2023
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2
Before: O’SCANNLAIN, FERNANDEZ, and SILVERMAN, Circuit Judges.
Daurio appeals from three district court orders. The first granted summary
judgment to the Defendants for three claims barred by qualified immunity; the
second held that Daurio lacked standing to pursue injunctive relief; and the third
denied Daurio’s motion to alter or amend the summary judgment order. Because
the facts are known to the parties, we repeat them only as necessary to explain our
decision.
I
An order remanding a case to state court after removal for lack of subject
matter jurisdiction is “not reviewable on appeal.” 28 U.S.C. § 1447(d). The
district court colorably characterized its remand for lack of standing as a remand
for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. See Powerex Corp. v. Reliant Energy
Servs., Inc., 551 U.S. 224, 234 (2007); Nat’l Org. for Women, Inc. v. Scheidler,
510 U.S. 249, 255 (1994). We do not have jurisdiction to reconsider the district
court order determining that Daurio lacked standing and remanding the case to
state court. The appeal is dismissed as to that order.
II
The district court properly determined that some of Daurio’s claims were
barred by qualified immunity, because Daurio failed to come forward with any
precedent to show that the rights allegedly violated were clearly established at the

-- 2 of 3 --

3
time of the alleged misconduct. See Shooter v. Arizona, 4 F.4th 955, 961 (9th Cir.
2021) (citing Romero v. Kitsap County, 931 F.2d 624, 627 (9th Cir. 1991)).
III
A district court may reconsider its judgment for newly discovered evidence,
clear error or manifest injustice, or an intervening change in controlling law. Sch.
Dist. No. 1J v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1263 (9th Cir. 1993). In his motion to
alter or to amend the judgment, Daurio did not argue that any of those grounds for
reconsideration applied. The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying
the motion.
AFFIRMED in part and DISMISSED in part.

-- 3 of 3 --