Case Name: Catherine JONES, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO; et al., Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2015-10-26
Citations: 621 F. App'x 437
Docket Number: No. 13-16478
Parties: Catherine JONES, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before: WALLACE, SILVERMAN, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 621
Pages: 437–438

Head Matter:
Catherine JONES, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
No. 13-16478.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Oct. 22, 2015.
Filed Oct. 26, 2015.
Robert Powell, San Jose, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellant.
Elizabeth Pederson, Deputy City, San Francisco City Attorney’s Office, San Francisco, CA, for Defendants-Appellees.
Before: WALLACE, SILVERMAN, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Catherine Jones appeals from the district court's summary judgment in favor of the City and County of San Francisco, and county social workers, following the social workers' removal of her newborn child from her custody without prior judicial authorization. We review the district court's decision de novo, Mabe v. San Ber-nardino County, Dept. of Pub. Soc. Serv., 237 F.3d 1101, 1106 (9th Cir.2001), and we affirm.
The district court correctly ruled that the defendants were entitled to qualified immunity because the undisputed facts show that they identified specific, articula-ble evidence which provided them with the reasonable belief that the child was in imminent danger of harm; the scope of their actions was tailored to avert the specific harm feared; and they followed state law in assuring prompt judicial review of their actions. Burke v. Cnty. of Alameda, 586 F.3d 725, 731 (9th Cir.2009); Rogers v. Cnty. of San Joaquin, 487 F.3d 1288, 1294 (9th Cir.2007); Wallis v. Spencer, 202 F.3d 1126, 1138 (9th Cir.2000).
We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised in the opening brief, or arguments and allegations raised for the first time on appeal or in the reply brief. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n. 2 (9th Cir.2009) (per curiam).
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.