NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FEB 15 2018
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
MICHAEL HOLLAND, No. 16-56428
Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No.
2:12-cv-00461-AG-JC
v.
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES; et al., MEMORANDUM*
Defendants-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
Andrew J. Guilford, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted February 13, 2018**
Pasadena, California
Before: McKEOWN and WARDLAW, Circuit Judges, and QUIST,*** District
Judge.
Michael Holland appeals from the district judge’s grant of summary
judgment in favor of defendants in this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action. We have
*
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).
***
The Honorable Gordon J. Quist, United States District Judge for the
Western District of Michigan, sitting by designation.
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
1. The district court properly granted summary judgment in favor of the
defendant, the County of Los Angeles (County), under Monell v. Department of
Social Services, 436 U.S. 658 (1978). Holland failed to raise a genuine dispute of
material fact as to whether the County had a policy or custom of routinely delaying
grievance hearings, refusing to conduct internal reviews, or requiring
communication by telephone only. The County’s written policy allowed internal
reviews and written communications, and required compliance with statutory
deadlines. Although Holland presented evidence that suggested that, due to
understaffing, the Department of Child and Family Services (DCFS) routinely
missed statutory deadlines, the undisputed evidence showed that DCFS’s
customary delay, if any, was not the “moving force behind the [alleged]
constitutional violation.” See Oviatt v. Pearce, 954 F.2d 1470, 1474 (9th Cir.
1992). DCFS’s chief grievance review officer called Holland multiple times, and
sent emails and letters for several months. The district court did not err in
concluding that on this record no reasonable juror could conclude that Holland did
not have an opportunity to schedule a grievance hearing, or that DCFS policy
caused the delay.
2. The district court correctly concluded that the DCFS social worker
defendants, Kathleen Brunson-Fluker, Vickie McCauley, Shiloh Davenport,
2
Natalie Oster, and Sue Pomerville, are entitled to qualified immunity. Holland
failed to adduce any evidence that the social workers lied, fabricated, or suppressed
evidence in their investigation or in court documents. Nor was there any evidence
at summary judgment that the social workers started their investigation or reported
Holland to the California Child Abuse Central Index in retaliation for Holland’s
2007 book. Thus Holland has failed to demonstrate a genuine dispute of material
fact as to whether the social workers fabricated evidence. Cf. Costanich v. Dep’t of
Social Servs., 627 F.3d 1101, 1111 (9th Cir. 2010) (citing Devereaux v. Abbey, 263
F.3d 1070, 1076 (9th Cir. 2001) (en banc) (describing the standard for a deliberate
fabrication of evidence claim in the context of a juvenile dependency proceeding)).
The district court properly concluded that the social workers were entitled to
qualified immunity from suit under § 1983.
AFFIRMED.
3