Lorraine Patterson v. Carla Miller

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS AUG 24 2021
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
LORRAINE PATTERSON, No. 20-15860
Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 2:15-cv-00321-NVW
v.
MEMORANDUM*
CARLA MILLER; et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Arizona
Neil V. Wake, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted August 17, 2021**
Before: SILVERMAN, CHRISTEN, and LEE, Circuit Judges.
Lorraine Patterson appeals pro se from the district court’s summary
judgment in her 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging that defendant child protective
services workers violated her constitutional rights in connection with state court
proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo.
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
Kohler v. Bed Bath & Beyond, LLC, 780 F.3d 1260, 1263 (9th Cir. 2015). We
affirm.
The district court properly granted summary judgment on Patterson’s due
process claim because Patterson failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as
to whether the defendant child protective service workers deliberately fabricated or
suppressed evidence in connection with the juvenile dependency proceedings. See
Devereaux v. Abbey, 263 F.3d 1070, 1076 (9th Cir. 2001) (en banc) (describing the
standard for a deliberate fabrication of evidence claim in the context of a juvenile
dependency proceeding); see also Greene v. Camreta, 588 F.3d 1011, 1034-35 (9th
Cir. 2009), vacated in part on other grounds, 563 U.S. 692 (2011) (judicial
deception claim requires a showing that the defendant knowingly made materially
false statements or omissions).
We do not consider arguments raised for the first time on appeal or matters
not specifically and distinctly raised and argued in the opening brief. See Padgett
v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).
AFFIRMED.
2 20-15860