Sjurset v. Button, No. 13-35851 (9th Cir. 2015)
Annotate this CasePlaintiff filed suit on behalf of himself and his children against police officers, four DHS officials and the City, under 42 U.S.C. 1983, alleging that DHS and the officers took custody of his children without reasonable cause. The court concluded that the factual issues do not preclude the court from hearing the officers' appeal and rejected plaintiff's claim under Johnson v. Jones. In this case, the undisputed facts provide a sufficient basis to determine whether the officers’ reliance on DHS’s determination violated any clearly established right of plaintiffs. The court also concluded that the officers were not incompetent in believing that they were legally authorized to act in reliance on DHS’s determination. And even if the officers were mistaken in their belief that they could remove the children at the direction of DHS without court authorization, their actions were objectively reasonable under the circumstances. Therefore, the officers are entitled to qualified immunity. The court reversed the district court's order denying qualified immunity to the officers and remanded.
Court Description: Civil Rights. The panel reversed the district court’s order on summary judgment denying qualified immunity to police officers, and remanded in an action brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 in which plaintiff alleged that the officers took custody of his children without reasonable cause or a court order, in violation of plaintiff’s Fourteenth Amendment right to familial association and the children’s Fourth Amendment right to be free from unreasonable seizure. The panel first rejected plaintiff’s contention that pursuant to Johnson v. Jones, 515 U.S. 304 (1995), disputed factual issues precluded it from hearing the officers’ appeal from the SJURSET V. BUTTON 3 district court’s order. The panel held that Johnson was inapplicable because this appeal was based on undisputed facts as they related to a purely abstract issue of law—that is, whether the officers violated clearly established law when they acted in reliance on the determination made by Department of Human Services officials that the children were in imminent danger. The panel held that the officers were not incompetent in believing that they were legally authorized to act in reliance on the Department of Human Services’ determination that the children were in imminent danger. The panel further held that even if the officers were mistaken in their belief that they could remove the children at the direction of the Department of Human Services without court authorization, their actions were objectively reasonable under the circumstances. Accordingly, the panel held that the officers were entitled to qualified immunity and remanded the case to the district court for entry of judgment in their favor.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.