In A.E. v. County of Tulare, published January 27, 2012, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed a district court's decision dismissing federal and state causes of action against a county defendant arising out of placement of a foster child in a home where another foster child allegedly attacked him.
The county contended that the district court properly dismissed the state law claims against it because California case law dictated public employees were entitled to discretionary immunity under Government Code section 820.2 for decisions concerning foster child placement. The Ninth Circuit declined to follow this case law. It determined that the decisions on the matter from lower appellate courts conflicted with California Supreme Court case law limiting discretionary immunity to policy decisions. The court declared itself bound by the California Supreme Court's interpretation of the law. Since the district court allowed the plaintiff to amend the complaint to state a negligence cause of action against the employees, it should have allowed the plaintiff to amend to state a claim against the county for vicarious liability under Government Code section 815.2.
The Ninth Circuit upheld the district court's decision to dismiss the plaintiff's allegations that the county was liable under 42 U.S.C. section 1983 for violating the foster child's rights through a custom, policy, or practice. The allegations stated only the bare elements of municipal liability. Although the Ninth Circuit's case law had previously approved that sort of pleading as sufficient, Ashcroft v. Iqbal, __ U.S.__, 129 S.Ct. 1937 (2009) requires a plaintiff to plead plausible facts in support of section 1983 causes of action. That standard applies to Monell liability of municipalities. But the district court erred in failing to allow the plaintiff to amend these allegations.
Comments