N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
ALIC E B R OW

N, Pla i ntiff-Appe lla

nt,
v. C OUNTY OF SAN B ER NARDINO; SHER IFF’ S DEPAR TM ENT, B ig B e ar Station; M . M C C R

AC KEN, Sa

n B e rna rdino C o unty

De puty She riff; M ASON, Se rge ant; ESTATE OF JEREM IAH M AC KAY,

De fe nda nts-Appe lle e s. No. 19-56033 D.C . No. 5:13-c v-00130-DSF-FFM
M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the C e ntra l Distric t of C a lifornia Da le S. Fisc he r, Distric t Judge , Pre siding Subm itte d M arc h 17, 2021 ** San Fran c isc o , C a lifornia B e fore : FER

NANDEZ, SILVER

M AN, a nd N.R . SM ITH, C irc uit Judge s. 

# FIL ED MAR 19 2021 M OLLY C. DW Y E R, CLERK U. S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a

ppropria te for public ation a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by Ninth C irc uit R

ule 36-3.

* * T he pa ne l una nim ously c onc lude s this c a se is suita ble for de c i sion without ora l argum e nt. S

e eFe d. R . App. P. 34(a)(2).Alic e B rown a ppe a ls pro sethe distric t c ourt’ s pa rtia l gra nt of qua lifie d im m unity and its judgme nt a fte r a

jury ve rdic t on he r 42 U.S.C . § 1983 c la i m s
a ga inst Deputy

M a rke M c C ra c k e n a

nd the Esta

te of De te c tive Je re m ia

h M a c Kay for viola ting he r Fourte e nth Am e ndm e nt right to fa m ilia l a ssoc iation. W e a ffirm
. The distric t c ourt prope rly grante d qua lifie d im

m unity to M c C ra c k e n for B rown’ s c la im a lle ging viola t ion of he r Fourte e nth Am e ndm e nt right to c a re , c ustody , a nd c o ntrol of he r c hild ba se d on M c C ra c ke n’ s re te ntion a nd la te r transfe r of he r c hild to Sa

n B e rnardino C ounty

C h ildre n a

n d Fam ily

Se rvic e s (“ C FS” ). W e re vie w de novo a

distric t c ourt’ s gra

nt of sum m ary judgm e nt ba se d

on qua l ifie d im m unity
. Se eVazque

z v . C ounty of K e rn , 949 F.3d 1153, 1159 (9th C ir. 2020). Qua lifie d im m un ity “prote c ts gove rnm e nt offic ia ls ‘ from lia bility for c ivil da

m a ge s insofa r a s the ir c onduc t

doe s not viola

te c le arly e s ta blishe d sta

tutory or c onstitutiona

l rights of which a re a sona ble pe rson would ha

ve known.’ ” Pe arson
v . C allahan , 555 U.S. 223, 231, 129 S. Ct . 808, 815, 172 L. Ed. 2d 565 (2009). It is not c le arly

e s ta blishe d tha

t the re is a

Fourte e nth Am e ndm e nt viola tion in a situa tion likethe one he re , whe re the c hild’ s m othe r a sse rts tha t he r rights we re viola te d be c a use he r c hild, who wa s in prote c tive polic e c ustody , wa s pla c e d with C FS whe n the whe re a

bouts of a pa re nt or le ga l gua

rdia n wa s unknown. As a

1 9
- 5 6 0 3 3 2re sult, M c C ra c ke n is e ntitle d to qua lifie d im m unity
. Se e K

ise la v . Hughe

s , __ U.S.__, __, 138 S. C t. 1148, 1152, 200 L. Ed. 2d 449 (2018) (pe r c uriam ). B rown a lso a

rgue s for the first tim e on a ppe a l tha t the jury wa s ra c ia lly bia s e d a ga i nst he r an d tha t the distric t c ourt’ s c om

m e nts during trial pre

judic e d the jury . W e re vie w forfe i te d rights for plain e rror. Se e Hoard v . Hartman , 904 F.3d 780, 786–87 (9th C ir. 2018). B rown ha s not shown a ny obvious error a ffe c ting he r substa ntia l rights. Her ge ne ra liz e d a sse rtions of sy ste m ic ra c ism in Am e ric a

are insuffic ie nt to e sta

blish a c tua l or im

plie d juror bia s. Se eFie lds v
. W oodford , 309 F.3d 1095, 1103–04 (9th C i r.), ame nde d by , 3 15 F.3d 1062 (9th C ir. 2002). Sim ila rly , B rown ha s not shown a ny judic ia l m isc onduc t. Tha t the distric t c ourt
oc c a siona lly

stoppe d B rown from

a sking witne s se s c e rta in que stions or from te stify ing whilea c ting in her role a s an a d voc ate doe s not itse lf show misc o nduc t, le t a l one pla in e rror. Se eLarson v . Palmate e r , 515 F.3d 1057, 1067 (9th C ir. 2008); Hanse n v . C

o m m’r , 820 F.2d 1464, 1467 (9th C i r. 1987). Fina lly , B rown wa i ve d re vie w of whe the r the distric t c ourt prope rly re da c te d the j ury fore pe rson’ s na

m e from the ve rdic t form
. Se eRe s orts Int’l, Inc . v . Low e n sc huss (

In re Low e nsc huss ), 67 F.3d 1394, 1402 (9th C i r. 1995). She a lso
wa ive d re vie w of whe the r the ve rdic t is supporte d by substa nt ia l e vide n c e . Se e Smith v . Marsh , 194 F.3d 1045, 1052 (9th C ir. 1999). Eve n if she ha d ra ise d the

1 9
- 5 6 0 3 3 3argum e nt in he r ope ning brie f, B rown’ s fa ilure to m ake the a ppropria te m otions unde r Fe de ra l R

u le s of C ivil Proc e dure 50 a nd 59 pre c lude s this c ourt’ s re vie w. Se eUnithe rm Food Sy

s., Inc . v . Sw ift-Ec k

ric h, Inc
. , 546 U.S. 394, 401–04, 126 S. C t. 980, 985–87, 163 L. Ed. 2d 974 (2006); N itc o Holding C

orp. v . Boujik

i an , 491 F.3d 1086, 1088–90 (9th C i r. 2007). AFFIRM E D.

1 9
- 5 6 0 3 3 4