Opinion ID: 3049147
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: analysis

Text: [1] The touchstone of the absolute immunity analysis is the “nature of the function performed, not the identity of the actor who performed it.” Kalina v. Fletcher, 522 U.S. 118, 127 (1997). Courts grant absolute immunity from liability for suits arising out of the performance of functions that are necessary to the judicial process. Miller v. Gammie, 335 F.3d 889, 896 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc) (citing Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U.S. 409, 430 (1976)). At early common law, this included most actions of judges, grand jurors, and prosecutors. Imbler, 424 U.S. at 422-24. Witnesses testifying in court received absolute immunity, but “complaining witnesses,” those swearing to the facts in the initial complaint, did not. Kalina, 522 U.S. at 130-31; Burns v. Reed, 500 U.S. 478, 489-90 (1991). Absolute immunity has been extended to the actions of other state actors when they engage in functions that are quasiprosecutorial or quasi-judicial. Antoine v. Bryers & Anderson, Inc., 508 U.S. 429, 435-36 (1993); see also Miller, 335 F.3d at 897. However, the Court has not recognized absolute immunity for acts that are “further removed from the judicial phase of proceedings than the act of a prosecutor in seeking an indictment.” Kalina, 522 U.S. at 128 (quoting Malley v. Briggs, 475 U.S. 335, 341 (1986)). In this circuit, we have determined that under this framework social workers are entitled to absolute immunity for their “actions in investigating and presenting evidence to the dependency court.” Doe v. Lebbos, 348 F.3d 820, 825 (9th Cir. 2003). On appeal, plaintiffs argue, first, that Tjhin is not eligible for absolute immunity for swearing to the facts in the dependency petition because when she did so she was acting as a complaining witness, not entitled to immunity. See Kalina, 522 U.S. at 129. Second, they argue that Suarez is not entitled to absolute immunity for filing the custody petition, because this action is analogous to that of a police officer filing an arrest warrant, for which only qualified immunity is available. See Malley, 475 U.S. at 343. 7572 BELTRAN v. SANTA CLARA COUNTY Here, as in Lebbos, plaintiffs complain that the social workers failed to properly investigate the case prior to filing the petitions and that they deliberately fabricated evidence presented to the dependency court. Lebbos extends absolute immunity to the failure to investigate possible exculpatory evidence and to the fabrication of evidence in dependency petitions. Lebbos, 348 F.3d at 826. Immunity exists because the social workers “engaged in these actions as part of [their] initiation and pursuit of child dependency proceedings” and, therefore, they “had the ‘requisite connection to the judicial process’ to be protected by absolute immunity.” Id. (quoting Miller, 335 F.3d at 896). Thus, under Lebbos, the defendants are entitled to absolute immunity. Plaintiffs urge us to distinguish Lebbos because Tjhin filed the dependency petition under penalty of perjury, and Lebbos fails to specify that the social worker did so in that case. Plaintiffs argue that it is the act of verifying the petition that makes the social worker like a complaining witness. However, the social worker in Lebbos undoubtedly verified the statements in her dependency petition as California law requires that dependency petitions be presented by a social worker, that they include a statement of facts, and that they “shall be verified.” CAL. WELF. & INST. CODE §§ 325, 332. [2] Even if the Lebbos social worker did not do so, Lebbos holds that social workers are immune for their “actions in investigating and presenting evidence to the dependency court,” which must realistically under the California procedure include verifying the petition. Lebbos, 345 F.3d at 825. The social worker’s responsibility to investigate the complaint puts her in a different position vis-a-vis the legal proceeding than the prosecutor in Kalina who, by verifying a petition, “performed an act that any competent witness might have performed.” Kalina, 522 U.S. at 129-30. Only a social worker who performed or supervised the investigation can verify the information presented to the court regarding that investigation. No one else can report both the opinions of those who BELTRAN v. SANTA CLARA COUNTY 7573 interact with the family and the results of the investigation, which include the investigator’s observations of the home and the family interactions, and the Department’s assessment of the relative credibility of the parties. In verifying a petition with this information, the social worker or her supervisor does not take a “shortcut,” as the dissent argues. Dis. op. at 7585. She provides the court with valuable information not otherwise available and verifies that information, which, by law, must be verified. Moreover, rather than acting in a way that is inconsistent with “the ethics of [her] profession,” as the prosecutor did in Kalina, she is performing her responsibilities as defined by California law. Kalina, 522 U.S. at 129-30. It would defy reason to hold that a social worker is immune for investigating the case, preparing and filing the petition, and presenting evidence to the court, but not for signing and verifying the petition that she is required to prepare and present and that describes the investigation she is required to perform or supervise. Like all of these other acts, signing and verifying the petition is “part of [the] initiation and pursuit of child dependency proceedings.” Lebbos, 345 F.3d at 825. Such acts are even more closely connected to the prosecution of the case than the investigation, since the petition is actually presented to the court. Accordingly, plaintiffs’ attempts to distinguish Lebbos on these grounds must fail. [3] Plaintiffs also argue that even if absolute immunity is applicable to the acts of signing and verifying dependency petitions, social workers should not be absolutely immune for similar acts with respect to custody petitions. They contend that filing the latter form of petition is analogous to filing a motion for an arrest warrant and, as such, is “further removed from the judicial phase of . . . proceedings.” Kalina, 522 U.S. at 128 (quoting Malley v. Briggs, 475 U.S. 335, 341 (1986)). This argument is likewise unavailing. We have already held that social workers are entitled to absolute immunity for filing custody petitions. Coverdell v. Dep’t of Soc. & Health Servs., 834 F.2d 758, 764 (9th Cir 1987). Although the Supreme Court has discussed absolute immunity since Coverdell was 7574 BELTRAN v. SANTA CLARA COUNTY decided, and Coverdell was limited in part by Miller, 335 F.3d 889, the rationale of Lebbos makes clear that in this circuit Coverdell’s holding on this point is still good law. Like filing a dependency petition, filing a custody petition is “part of [the] initiation and pursuit of child dependency proceedings.” Lebbos, 348 F.3d at 826. This close relationship to the prosecution of the case is similar to that which exists when prosecutors file petitions for arrest warrants, an act for which absolute immunity is afforded. See Kalina, 522 U.S. at 129. Indeed, the act of a social worker of filing a custody petition is more integrally associated with the prosecution of the case than the act of a prosecutor in filing an arrest warrant. A custody petition cannot be filed without a dependency petition and rests on the same facts as the dependency petition. Also, like the dependency petition, it is filed with the dependency court in order to protect the child. Thus, it serves the same goal as the dependency petition and is part of the same judicial proceeding. Accordingly, we hold that, under Lebbos, social workers have absolute immunity for preparing and filing custody petitions, just as they do for preparing and filing dependency petitions. We also hold that, in light of the relationship we have just described between the two types of petitions, the acts of signing and verifying custody petitions are covered by absolute immunity for the same reasons that signing and verifying dependency petitions are. [4] Plaintiffs further contend that the California legislature has rejected absolute immunity for social workers’ submission of facts to the dependency court, and that we are bound by California law. California Government Code § 820.21 purports to strip social workers of absolute immunity from liability for perjury, fabrication of evidence, and failure to disclose exculpatory evidence if committed with malice.3 Although 3 The statute states: Notwithstanding any other provision of the law, the civil immunity of juvenile court social workers, child protection workers, BELTRAN v. SANTA CLARA COUNTY 7575 this Act eliminates immunity under state law, immunity for § 1983 purposes is set by federal law and cannot be overridden by state legislatures. Wallis v. Spencer, 202 F.3d 1126, 1144 (9th Cir. 2000). Courts considering social workers’ immunity under federal law after the passage of § 820.21, including the Lebbos court, have, accordingly, universally ignored the statute. See, e.g., Lebbos, 348 F.3d 820; Miller, 335 F.3d 889; Mabe v. San Bernardino County Dep’t of Pub. Soc. Servs., 237 F.3d 1101, 1109 (9th Cir. 2001). In holding that the social workers are immune for their actions in this case, we are not granting social workers absolute immunity for “everything they do,” as the plaintiffs argue. Rather, we follow Lebbos in recognizing a distinction between the initiation and pursuit of dependency proceedings and other discretionary decisions and recommendations. Nothing in this decision undermines our holdings in Lebbos and in Wallis, that social workers are not entitled to absolute immunity for their actions relating to the maintenance and care of children in state custody. Consistent with these cases, we afford absolute immunity to social workers only for those actions that are closely connected to the judicial process. and other public employees authorized to initiate or conduct investigations or proceedings pursuant to Chapter 2 (commencing with Section 200) of Part 1 of Division 2 of the Welfare and Institutions Code shall not extend to any of the following, if committed with malice: (1) Perjury. (2) Fabrication of evidence. (3) Failure to disclose known exculpatory evidence. (4) Obtaining testimony by duress, as defined in Section 1569 of the Civil Code, fraud, as defined in either Section 1572 or Section 1573 of the Civil Code, or undue influence, as defined in Section 1575 of the Civil Code. CAL. GOV’T CODE § 820.21(a). 7576 BELTRAN v. SANTA CLARA COUNTY