Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
COUNTY OF ORANGE,
Defendant, OPINION
and
SUMMARY*
Civil Rights
The panel held that the social workers were not entitled to
absolute immunity from claims that they maliciously used
perjured testimony and fabricated evidence to secure
plaintiffs removal. The panel held that plaintiffs complaint
targeted conduct well outside of the social workers
legitimate role as quasi-prosecutorial advocates in presenting
the case.
*
This summary constitutes no part of the opinion of the court. It has
been prepared by court staff for the convenience of the reader.
HARDWICK V. VREEKEN 3
COUNSEL
OPINION
Exposition
II
Background
Id. at *14.
III
IV
Absolute Immunity
Qualified Immunity
A.
Collateral Estoppel
B.
C.
Clearly Established
D.
Development
Answer: No . . . .
E.
Costanich
The defendants insist that the law they are alleged to have
violated was not clearly established by February 2000. To
support this assertion, they rely on our opinion in Costanich
v. Dept of Soc. and Health Servs., 627 F.3d 1101 (9th Cir.
2010). Defendants contend that Costanich dealt with the
same familial association rights as the rights at issue here.
We disagree. The interest at issue in Costanich derived from
state statutes and was materially different from the
fundamental constitutional liberty interest in this case, and
different in a pellucid manner that directly affects what a
social worker would comprehend about that interest.
VI
Recapitulation
AFFIRMED.