Sexton

MEMORANDUM

Appellant Elizabeth Sexton is deaf. She alleges that, during proceedings that eventually resulted in her losing custody of her children for a period of time, two state- *738 court judicial officers, Commissioner Grilli and Referee Johnson, along with the County of Santa Clara denied her the use of an “oral interpreter,” assistive listening devices, or real-time transcription, which were the accommodations she requested.

On appeal, Sexton challenges only the judgment in favor of the County with respect to her claims under the ADA, California Civil Code section 54.8, and the Due Process Clause.

Federal Claims

To hold the County hable with regard to her federal claims, Sexton would have to allege that the actions inflicting injury: (1) flowed from either an explicitly adopted or a tacitly authorized county policy, see Hyland v. Wonder, 117 F.3d 405, 414 (9th Cir.1997); (2) were the result of a deliberate choice among various alternatives by an appropriate policy-making official of the county, see Pembaur v. City of Cincinnati, 475 U.S. 469, 483-84 , 106 S.Ct. 1292 , 89 L.Ed.2d 452 (1986); or (3) reflected a subordinate’s decision, and the official county policy-maker…