1 A 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 10 ANNE MCNELIS, individually and as No. 2:22-cv-00369-TLN-JDP Guardian ad Litem for L.N., 11 12 Plaintiffs, ORDER 13 v. 14 COUNTY OF EL DORADO, KIMBERLY

PIERCE, CAITLYN HAYDEN,

15 SAMANTHA HODGE, and DOES 1-10, inclusive, 16

17 Defendants.

18 19 This matter is before the Court on Defendants Kimberly Pierce (“Pierce”) and Caitlyn 20 Hayden’s (“Hayden”) (collectively, “Defendants”) Motion to Dismiss.1 (ECF No. 15.) Plaintiff 21 Anne McNelis (“Plaintiff”), acting on behalf of herself and as guardian ad litem for minor L.N., 22 opposed the motion.2 (ECF No. 19.) Defendants replied. (ECF No. 22.) For the reasons set 23 forth below, the Court DENIES Defendants’ motion. 24 /// 25

1 Defendants County of El Dorado (“County”) and Samantha Hodge (“Hodge”) do not join 26 in this motion and instead filed Answers to the Complaint. (ECF Nos. 16, 17.) 27 2 When the Court discusses McNelis and L.N. together, it will address them collectively as 28 “Plaintiffs.” 1 I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND3 2 This case involves the removal of L.N. from Plaintiff’s home by El Dorado County Child 3 Protective Services (“CPS”). (ECF No. 1 at 18.) The Complaint recounts multiple referrals to 4 CPS, the last of which was made on February 27, 2020. (Id. at 16.) The referrals included 5 allegations about L.N. being molested by her siblings and Plaintiff becoming “unhinged” and 6 abusive. (Id.) On the same day as the last CPS referral, social workers Hodge, Hayden, and 7 Pierce decided to remove L.N. from Plaintiff’s home as part of a conspiracy. (Id. at 16–17.) At 8 approximately 9:00 p.m. on February 27, 2020, Hodge and four to six police offers came to 9 Plaintiff’s home and removed L.N. from the home. (Id. at 18.) Hodge subsequently transported 10 L.N. to the New Morning Youth Shelter. (Id. at 20.) On February 28, 2020, Hayden informed 11 Plaintiff that a forensic body examination had been performed on L.N. (Id. at 22.) 12 Plaintiff filed this action on February 25, 2022, alleging the following claims: (1) a 42 13 U.S.C. § 1983 (“§ 1983”) claim against all Defendants for Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment 14 violations based on the warrantless seizure of L.N.; (2) a § 1983 claim against all Defendants for 15 Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment violations based on the unlawful medical examination of 16 L.N.; and (3) a Monell claim against the County. (Id. at 34–42.) Defendants filed the instant 17 motion to dismiss on May 31, 2022. (ECF No. 15.) 18 II. STANDARD OF LAW 19 A motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted under 20 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure (“Rule”) 12(b)(6) tests the legal sufficiency of a complaint. 21 Navarro v. Block, 250 F.3d 729, 732 (9th Cir. 2001). Rule 8(a) requires that a pleading contain 22 “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed. R. 23 Civ. P. 8(a); see also Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 677–78 (2009). Under notice pleading in 24 federal court, the complaint must “give the defendant fair notice of what the . . . claim is and the 25 grounds upon which it rests.” Bell Atlantic v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007) (internal 26 citation and quotations omitted). “This simplified notice pleading standard relies on liberal 27

28 3 The following facts are taken from the allegations in the Complaint. (ECF No. 1.) 1 discovery rules and summary judgment motions to define disputed facts and issues and to dispose 2 of unmeritorious claims.” Swierkiewicz v. Sorema N.A., 534 U.S. 506, 512 (2002). 3 On a motion to dismiss, the factual allegations of the complaint must be accepted as true. 4 Cruz v. Beto, 405 U.S. 319, 322 (1972). A court must give the plaintiff the benefit of every 5 reasonable inference to be drawn from the “well-pleaded” allegations of the complaint. Retail 6 Clerks Int’l Ass’n v. Schermerhorn, 373 U.S. 746, 753 n.6 (1963). A plaintiff need not allege 7 “‘specific facts’ beyond those necessary to state his claim and the grounds showing entitlement to 8 relief.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570 (internal citation omitted). 9 Nevertheless, a court “need not assume the truth of legal conclusions cast in the form of 10 factual allegations.” U.S. ex rel. Chunie v. Ringrose, 788 F.2d 638, 643 n.2 (9th Cir. 1986). 11 While Rule 8(a) does not require detailed factual allegations, “it demands more than an 12 unadorned, the defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me accusation.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678. A 13 pleading is insufficient if it offers mere “labels and conclusions” or “a formulaic recitation of the 14 elements of a cause of action.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555; see also Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 15 (“Threadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory 16 statements, do not suffice.”). Thus, “[c]onclusory allegations of law and unwarranted inferences 17 are insufficient to defeat a motion to dismiss” for failure to state a claim. Adams v. Johnson, 355 18 F.3d 1179, 1183 (9th Cir. 2004) (citations omitted). Moreover, it is inappropriate to assume the 19 plaintiff “can prove facts that it has not alleged or that the defendants have violated the . . . laws 20 in ways that have not been alleged.” Associated Gen. Contractors of Cal., Inc. v. Cal. State 21 Council of Carpenters, 459 U.S. 519, 526 (1983). 22 Ultimately, a court may not dismiss a complaint in which the plaintiff has alleged “enough 23 facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570. “A claim 24 has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the 25 reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 26 680. While the plausibility requirement is not akin to a probability requirement, it demands more 27 than “a sheer possibility that a defendant has acted unlawfully.” Id. at 678. This plausibility 28 inquiry is “a context-specific task that requires the reviewing court to draw on its judicial 1 experience and common sense.” Id. at 679. Thus, only where a plaintiff fails to “nudge [his or 2 her] claims . . . across the line from conceivable to plausible[,]” is the complaint properly 3 dismissed. Id. at 680 (internal quotations omitted). 4 If a complaint fails to state a plausible claim, “‘[a] district court should grant leave to 5 amend even if no request to amend the pleading was made, unless it determines that the pleading 6 could not possibly be cured by the allegation of other facts.’” Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 7 1130 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc) (quoting Doe v. United States, 58 F.3d 494, 497 (9th Cir. 1995)); 8 see also Gardner v. Martino, 563 F.3d 981, 990 (9th Cir. 2009) (finding no abuse of discretion in 9 denying leave to amend when amendment would be futile). Although a district court should 10 freely give leave to amend when justice so requires under Rule 15(a)(2), “the court’s discretion to 11 deny such leave is ‘particularly broad’ where the plaintiff has previously amended its complaint.” 12 Ecological Rights Found. v. Pac. Gas & Elec. Co., 713 F.3d 502, 520 (9th Cir. 2013) (quoting 13 Miller v. Yokohama Tire Corp., 358 F.3d 616, 622 (9th Cir. 2004)). 14 III. ANALYSIS 15 Defendants argue Claims One and Two should be dismissed based on the lack of factual 16 allegations pertaining to Pierce and Hayden.4 (ECF No. 15 at 4–8.) In opposition, Plaintiffs 17 argue they allege sufficient facts to show Pierce and Hayden’s involvement. (ECF No. 19 at 14– 18 20.) Plaintiffs cite several allegations from the Complaint, including: 19 1. Paragraph 98, which alleges that on February 27, 2020, Hodge, Hayden, 20 and Pierce made the decision together before speaking to Plaintiffs or

21 4 Defendants also argue Plaintiffs fail to allege a separate claim for a Fourteenth Amendment procedural due process violation. (ECF No. 15 at 8.) Plaintiffs do not address 22 Defendants’ argument in opposition other than to correctly note that “[c]ourts have characterized 23 the right to familial association as having both a substantive and a procedural component.” (ECF No. 19 at 15 (citing Keates v. Koile, 883 F.3d 1228, 1236 (9th Cir. 2018)). In the Complaint, 24 Plaintiffs do not allege a standalone procedural due process claim and instead frame their Fourteenth Amendment claims generally as violations of their rights to familial association. 25 (ECF No. 1 at 35–36.) Because there is no standalone procedural due process claim alleged in the Complaint, there is no need to dismiss the nonexistent claim. To the extent Plaintiffs allege 26 Defendants violated a “procedural component” of their rights to familial association as part of 27 their existing Fourteenth Amendment claims, the Court cannot say based on the limited arguments before it that Plaintiffs’ allegations are insufficient. For these reasons, the Court 28 DENIES Defendants’ motion to dismiss on this basis. 1 anyone else in Plaintiffs’ household, that they were going to remove L.N. 2 that evening; 3 2. Paragraphs 99–106, which allege Hodge, Hayden, and Pierce knew various 4 pieces of information that made removal improper; 5 3. Paragraph 107, which alleges Hodge, Hayden, and Pierce enlisted local 6 police officers to come to the home with Hodge; 7 4. Paragraph 115, which alleges while at Plaintiffs’ home, Hodge called her 8 supervisor, who Plaintiffs believe was Hayden or Pierce, and they agreed to 9 continue with the seizure of L.N.; 10 5. Paragraph 124, which alleges that at the time that Hodge, Hayden, and 11 Pierce conspired to seize L.N., each of them knew of the need to obtain a 12 warrant when there was an absence of an imminent risk of serious bodily 13 injury, yet willfully failed to seek a warrant knowing that insufficient 14 evidence supported such a request; 15 6. Paragraph 126, which alleges Hodge, Hayden, and Pierce failed to conduct 16 a reasonable investigation into the facts before seizing L.N., in that they 17 had failed to interview collateral witnesses, including the reporting party; 18 7. Paragraph 146, which alleges despite the absolute lack of evidence, Pierce, 19 Hayden, and Hodge failed to reverse their unlawful course of action and 20 continued L.N.’s detention; 21 8. Paragraph 151, which alleges despite there being no corroborating 22 evidence of sexual abuse in Plaintiffs’ home, Pierce, Hayden, and Hodge 23 failed to revisit and correct the decision to seize L.N.; 24 9. Paragraphs 157–160, which allege Hayden falsely testified at a family 25 court hearing that Plaintiff had entered into a “safety plan” that authorized 26 CPS to take custody of L.N.; 27 10. Paragraphs 163–164, which allege Pierce spoke with minor’s counsel and 28 made an improper custody recommendation; 1 11. Paragraph 132, which alleges that Hayden, Pierce, and Hodge were 2 responsible for all of the interviewing and medical exams and assessments 3 that L.N. was subjected to, having ordered the interviews, evaluations, and 4 assessments as they do in the normal course and scope of employment with 5 E] Dorado County; 6 The Complaint overall is lengthy, disorganized, and unclear at times. However, Plaintiffs 7 | have cited sufficient factual allegations from other parts of the Complaint to support at the very 8 || least a reasonable inference that Hayden and Pierce were integral participants in the conduct that 9 | led to L.N.’s seizure and subsequent medical exam. See Martinez v. City of W. Sacramento, No. 10 | 2:16-cv-02566-TLN-EFB, 2019 WL 448282, at *16 (E.D. Cal. Feb. 5, 2019) (‘[D]istrict courts . . 11 | . have upheld [§] 1983 claims against groups of defendants where the pleadings also include 12 | factual allegations sufficient to establish that individual defendants were integral participants in 13 | the unlawful conduct.”). Accordingly, the Court DENIES Defendants’ motion to dismiss. 14 IV. CONCLUSION 15 For the foregoing reasons, the Court DENIES Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss. (ECF No. 16 | 15.) Defendants Hayden and Pierce shall file a responsive pleading not later than twenty-one (21) 17 | days from the electronic filing date of this Order. 18 IT IS SO ORDERED. 19 | DATED: December 29, 2022 20 hy /) 21 “ ! | J fb 22 Troy L. Nuhlep ] 3 United States District Judge 24 25 26 27 28