Case ID: f-appx_684/html/0640-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Kevin James TEEMAN; Andrea Joy Lyons, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. YAKIMA COUNTY SHERIFF’S OFFICE; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 16-35634
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted March 8, 2017 
    
    Filed March 21, 2017
    Kevin James Teeman, Pro Se
    Andrea Joy Lyons, Pro Se
    Stefanie Jean Weigand, Attorney, Yakima County .Prosecuting Attorney, Corporate Counsel Division, Yakima, WA, for Defendants-Appellees
    Before: LEAVY, W. FLETCHER, and OWENS, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument, See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2),
    
   MEMORANDUM

Kevin James Teeman and Andrea Joy Lyons appeal pro se from the district court’s summary judgment in their. 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging constitutional violations arising from the temporary, war-rantless removal of their children. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo, Burke v. County of Alameda, 586 F.3d 725, 730 (9th Cir. 2009), and we affirm.

The district court properly granted summary judgment because Teeman and Joy failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether the warrantless removal was impermissible. See Jones v. County of Los Angeles, 802 F.3d 990, 1000 (9th Cir. 2015) (warrantless removal of a child is permissible if there is “reasonable cause to believe that the child is likely to experience serious bodily harm in the .time that would be required to obtain a warrant”); see also Mabe v. San Bernardino County, 237 F.3d 1101, 1109-11 (9th Cir. 2001) (setting forth requirements for supervisory and municipal liability under § 1983).

We reject as without merit Teeman and Lyons’s contentions regarding the Freedom of Information Act.

We do not consider issues raised by Teeman and Lyons in their brief that are not supported by argument. See Acosta-Huerta v. Estelle, 7 F.3d 139, 144 (9th Cir. 1992).

AFFIRMED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.