Home   Federal Cases   State Cases   News   Search   Cart   Log In 
Search 591,341 Cases and Articles on TJV!
Federal Case Categories

Innocent Parents Sue Over Placement on Child Abuser Database

Humphries v. County of Los Angeles, 554 F. 2d 1170 (C.A. 9, Jan. 15, 2009)

Falsely accused of and arrested for abuse of their 15-year old daughter, Craig and Wendy Humphries were found "factually innocent" after a doctor confirmed that the abuse charges could not be true. The state court ordered their arrest records sealed and destroyed, and the juvenile court dismissed all proceedings against them as "not true." Nevertheless, their names were placed on the California Child Abuse Central Index (“CACI”), a database of known or suspected child abusers which is available to various public and private agencies and groups who make hiring, licensing, custody and law enforcement decisions.

The Humphries were unable to get their names removed from the CACI. This was problematic not only emotionally, but because it could adversely affect Wendy's teacher credentials, her further education, and both Humphries' volunteer service.

The Humphries filed suit under 42 U.S.C. 1983 in U.S. District Court (C.D. Calif.) against the County of Los Angeles, Sheriff Leroy D. Baca, Detectives Wilson and Ansberry (collectively, the "County“) and California Attorney General Bill Lockyer (the "State“), alleging, among other things, that the initial and continued CACI listing violated their Fourteenth Amendment Due Process rights. The District Court granted summary judgment in favor of the County and State on that claim, and the Humphries appealed.

Under California law, all reports of child abuse made to law enforcement or a child welfare agency must be investigated and a finding made on whether the allegations are “substantiated,” “inconclusive,” or “unfounded.” Both “substantiated” and “inconclusive” reports are included in the CACI. Following its investigation of the Humphries' case, the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department (LACS) deemed the report against the Humphries “substantiated.”

The California DOJ instructed the Humphries that the only way to get their names removed from the CACI was to contact the investigator who had investigated the report against them. However, when the Humphries contacted the LACS, they were told that the investigator was no longer employed there and that the report would not be changed.

The Court of Appeals stated that in order to show that the County and State violated their procedural due process rights, the Humphries needed to show both that they had been deprived of a “liberty interest” and that the procedures accompanying that deprivation were not constitutionally sufficient.

The Court of Appeals held that they had in fact been deprived of a liberty interest under the “stigma-plus” test, as they suffered the stigma of being labeled child abusers on the CACI “plus” the loss of other tangible rights by the California system.

The Court of Appeals then held that this interest was deprived without Constitutionally-sufficient process, as the individual was effectively left at the mercy of the submitting agency to change its report. In so deciding, the Court balanced the interest affected, the State’s interest, and the probability that the State would erroneously keep an individual’s name on the CACI.

Despite the Constitutional violations, the Court held that Detective Ansberry and Sheriff Baca were entitled to summary judgment because neither personally participated in the Humphries’ CACI inclusion. In addition, it held that those two officers plus Detective Wilson were entitled to qualified immunity because the CACI was not so obviously unconstitutional that they could be expected to refuse to comply with it. Finally, stating that there is no qualified immunity for a governmental entity, the Court held that Los Angeles County could be liable under Section 1983, so it reversed the judgment in favor of the County and remanded the issue to the District Court.


Judge(s): Jay S. Bybee
Related Categories: Civil Procedure , Constitutional Law , Government / Politics
Amicus Lawyer(s) Amicus Law Firm(s)
Carolyn Kubitschek Lansner Kubitschek Schaffer

Appellant Lawyer(s) Appellant Law Firm(s)
Esther G. Boynton

Appellee Lawyer(s) Appellee Law Firm(s)
Mark D. Rutter Carpenter Rothans & Dumont
Lillie Hsu Greines Martin Stein & Richland LLP
Martin Stein Greines Martin Stein & Richland LLP
Alison Turner Greines Martin Stein & Richland LLP
Edmund G. Brown Office of the Attorney General
David S. Chaney Office of the Attorney General
Paul C. Epstein Office of the Attorney General
Marsha S. Miller Office of the Attorney General
James T. Schiavenza Office of the Attorney General



With your FREE registration, you can select an unlimited number of Alert categories for daily, weekly or monthly deliveries of the Federal and State Cases most relevant
to you!

Click Here to sign up.


Click the maroon box above for a formatted PDF of the decision.
that the humphries have been deprived of due process of law, and because the accuracy, completeness, and retention of the reports."). of state agencies that receive caci information. id. sions, it is apparent that the caci listing plays an integral role or adoptive purposes, the ca doj is also obligated to make 15050 humphries v. county of los angeles existed that caused the person to be listed in the first place. examining the process by which persons are listed on the "it would be clear to a reasonable officer that his conduct was first step of the procedural due process analysis: they have a seizure of the children. that claim is not before us on this appeal. founded." see cal. penal code 11165.12, 11169(a). such investigating allegations of child abuse so that it can issue a dence disclosed, and its sufficiency for making decisions." id. appellees, the county of los angeles, sheriff leroy d. tified foster parent, the county social worker shall 273d(a), and cruelty to a child by endangering health, id. eral months. an emergency room physician diagnosed "non- the case to be filed for misdemeanor consideration. the district attorney remove unfounded reports from the caci. a liberty or property interest which has been interfered with argued and submitted judgment. live with the humphries in valencia, california, on a trial that after conducting an investigation, the lasd would not those suspected of being child abusers can challenge the alle- examined s.h.'s entire body, and saw no sign of abuse. the tional regulatory procedures for challenging a listing on the of the listing and related records. their listing on the index. nothing in canra, however, pre- before the initial placement on caci combined with the lack ing independent conclusions regarding the quality of the evi- tion against the humphries based on s.h.'s allegations. after monte, which we previously discussed, the new york central not so obviously unconstitutional as to suggest to detective belong there, and then remaining on the index indefinitely. it is not evident they would be entitled to any greater process or remedy suade the investigating officer is not a satisfactory way to cor- ed." cal. penal code 11169(a). we are not assuaged. a denied a stigma-plus claim where the plaintiff was designated dentials. 15094 humphries v. county of los angeles shall also notify in writing the known or suspected child and the appellees' conduct relating to the sealing orders. moreover, it is and child placement. we have mentioned, and the district private businesses, and licensing agencies were required to had conspired to deprive them of a liberty interest to associate to the state department of social services, or to any the court did not reach the second step of the due process ued inclusion of the humphries on the caci deprives them scheme "[did] not simply defame valmonte, it place[d] a tan- law enforcement entities and even requires some public and (collectively "appellees"), moved for summary judgment on on the caci, the only remedy under this avenue for relief is alcohol pursuant to a state statute forbidding the sale of alco- a separate investigation to verify the accuracy of the investi- language in the leaflet just happened to come to the attention california maintains a database of "reports of suspected case, particularly when we consider the risk of erroneous 509-11 (7th cir. 2005) (finding that where "child care work- been deprived of this interest without due process of law. 15069humphries v. county of los angeles basis. the night of march 17, s.h. took the humphries' car 15055humphries v. county of los angeles 4 mathews calculus . . . contemplates a judicious balancing of [5] the humphries allege more than mere reputational tigatory file, but attach legal consequences to the mere listing worker who confirmed that the report was still "substantiated" license to satisfy the "plus" test. outright denial would mean cause warrants to arrest the humphries for cruelty to a child, california, as elsewhere, to being falsely accused of being a were erroneous. in the end, the agency may do what sergeant index. by failing to do so, lasd's custom and policy vio- or volunteer positions with a casa program, or for the central district of california 15054 humphries v. county of los angeles department of social services] shall check the [caci]. cal. state introduced an affidavit from castillo reporting that the cctc "is not appellees were maintaining records in violation of the sealing orders was create some hearing prior to listing individuals on caci. at and that his statement in the letter regarding shared information only on the humphries' abilities to obtain various licenses and 15066 humphries v. county of los angeles ognize a liberty interest where the state functionally requires teacher and resource specialist at a public school in califor- advocate program that is conducting a background investiga- tions are constitutionally inadequate, we do not propose to these concerns . . . ."). in the end, this is not a difficult case. false information. first, the effectiveness of a system listing agency or to a child welfare agency. id. 11165.9. these california do not adequately reduce the risk of error. in val- in light of the humphries' allegations--and keeping in mind circumstances--where there is no standard, no superior outlet evidence' standard results in many individuals being placed name on a flyer distributed to louisville merchants containing a matter of state law" by depriving her "of a right previously [20] beyond declaring that california's procedural protec- an attorney for the dss. the letter states that "[t]he law requires that [the corr. v. thompson, 490 u.s. 454, 460 (1989). california cur- ment, adoption, or child placement," id. 11170(b)(8); address the county's liability under monell because it found register, and destroyed. id. as in california, state agencies, and conducting an additional investigation. second, informa- to restate it in canra's own terms, the agency must satisfy under the california rules of court, the juvenile court is only autho- a child sexual abuser and placed on alabama's central regis- before: jay s. bybee and milan d. smith, jr., a person should be permitted to have a license to work or care that to satisfy stigma-plus, a child abuse registry does not interest that an innocent person listed on the caci seeks to constitutional right as the first inquiry." saucier v. katz, 533 see colo. gen. assembly v. salazar, 541 u.s. 1093, 1095 penal code 11170(b)(8). the "court appointed special in addition, the eleventh circuit either did not have evi- the lack of any meaningful, guaranteed procedural safeguards no dispute that the juvenile court wrote that the allegations were "not suspected child abuser that his name is on the caci and pro- the humphries also argue that they have a protected liberty interest next we grant the motion for summary judgment in favor sations. in constantineau, the chief of police had posted the 15067humphries v. county of los angeles in most instances, california provides no formal means for reviewing this case presents the question of whether california's tion, he may have his work reviewed by a superior within the sion to carry. it must overcome a presumption of other disability that foreclosed his freedom to take advantage 18 f.3d 992, 1000 (2d cir. 1994) (finding it beyond dispute and in his official capacity as a caci "shall be continually updated by the department and of what the government is doing to him." 400 u.s. 433, 437 rently provides some minimal safeguards against erroneously protect their children. see id. at 1013 (bybee, j., dissenting) come to its own conclusion. cal. penal code however, california provides no formal mechanism for ted into evidence, but rather the underlying "sealed records." [15] the california system asks too much of its investiga- 15058 humphries v. county of los angeles "credible evidence" of abuse. cal. penal code 11165.12(b) (2001). as will not lose these benefits based merely on their reputation, and canra provides that an individual who was originally listed for example, before issuing a license for child care, we can- licensing, and custody decisions. fied immunity. officials who violate constitutional rights purpose other than conducting background checks in foster or one on the caci, or whether it also constitutes the definition arrestee committed the offense for which the arrest was we also have no difficulty finding that detective wilson is process under the fourteenth amendment. the state." id. at 1001. valmonte stands for the proposition conducting background investigations for potential court fied immunity for any damages resulting from the denial of of sheriff baca. under 1983, a supervisor is only liable for determination that a report has "subsequently prove[d] to be 15049humphries v. county of los angeles for employment in a position having supervisorial or the humphries' caci listing were "not true" and that the underlying investigative report and make their own assess- they have an interest in pursuing employment and adoption, inherently improbable, an accidental injury, or does not con- code 11170(b)(4); persons making pre-employment investi- visiting their grandchildren." id. at 1176. entitled to immunity for their acts. relationship with her victimizer can render an act inherently a listed person might try to get the agency who originally custom. to the extent that the eleventh circuit refuses to rec- an investigator to review his prior decisions. under such duct so unequivocally violates american ethics as . . . sexual remaining three claims, the humphries sought relief pursuant could not be true, the state dismissed the criminal case against because an agency that has consulted the caci must base its and listed in canra unless the investigator determines that caci, assume that individuals listed on the caci actually that the report is not unfounded." cal. penal code possibly no information more relevant to determining whether at the center. thus, the humphries will have to submit to a true," the humphries were identified as "substantiated" child fornia has collected such information since 1965, see 1965 and that, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the non- the threshold question of the "existence or nonexistence of a observed, the millers were in fact awarded guardianship of destruction. . . . nevertheless, defendants still refuse to expunge plaintiffs' id. 11165.12(a). there is no further definition of what it of a child" so long as "the out-of-state statute or interstate 2 for making decisions regarding investigation, prose- predation upon the most vulnerable members of our society." report is unfounded, or how to make that decision in order to nevertheless, neither 851.8(i) nor 851.8(k) applies to our use of the the defamatory statement and the tangible burden on a legal interest "is not itself unconstitutional; what is unconstitutional dental injury, or not to constitute child abuse or neglect." cal. parents with children to live without unwarranted government interference charles ansberry, arrested craig and wendy humphries, and entitled to qualified immunity" which is lost only if it is "so negligent hiring here encompasses the particular risk of are not required to write anything down does not place any report has proved unfounded. canra provides that "[t]he tor, prosecutor, judge, and jury with respect to the humphries' 15078 humphries v. county of los angeles sealing orders as they relate to the information included in their caci list- ifornia penal code 206. the same day, a sheriff's deputy, omy under the federal constitution; and a protected liberty interest created 11170(a)(2). furthermore, as explained above, canra the issue of qualified immunity we may do so where it is clear inclusion on the caci does not necessarily bar the humph- has recognized, in its task force report, that it may have a high existence of a sufficient liberty interest under the stigma-plus the california commission on teacher credentialing caci and resolve the fact that other agencies will still be 11170(b)(9)(a). third, once an agency makes an adverse decision to list the humphries on the caci, or to keep them arrested, detective wilson completed a child abuse investiga- false, to be inherently improbable, to involve an accidental tions. canra makes the caci information available "to an police, or other agencies, to conduct a full investigation into bility under california law. see juarez v. boy scouts of am., (1971). the following year the court stated that a government of any effective process for removal from caci violates the report" will be deleted from the caci after ten years, as long as of october 31, 2003. despite the fact that two independent at the time that detective wilson filed his report, a "substantiated" greater detail below, denial of a right by dss may be subject to judicial ment on the caci and serve as appellate commissioner in 15093humphries v. county of los angeles court looked at that procedure, it determined that seventy-five ment). rather, the county is subject to liability under monell provide no means for people, such as the humphries, to dis- report "not to be unfounded, but the findings are inconclusive must consult the list."). 15073humphries v. county of los angeles a significant interest in maintaining caci--no one doubts 15071humphries v. county of los angeles the statutory scheme to show the limitations in the process afforded by decision, some persons have a right to appeal the decision in of an applicant for licensure or who is an applicant parent's nightmare. accused of abuse by a rebellious child, placed on the caci. we do not question the honesty and base or vile simply reflects contemporary american mores."). study, except to remark that it confirms our own observations the humphries sought three types of relief based on these point, we are unaware of any regulations that provide addi- ing the rights of grandparents listed on the caci. the mill- powers on the same individuals poses such a risk of government rights that an individual listed on the caci faces. as required by canra, in may 2001, the humphries were code 11169(a), 11170(a)(1). canra does not identify trative mechanisms in this country." id. rather, we hold that none of these means for correcting erroneous information ty's caci-related policies are unconstitutional because they edmund g. brown jr., attorney general of the state of cali- hundred percent of the population were erroneously included defines an "unfounded report" as "a report that is determined listing will both influence their ability to obtain certain bene- humphries' due process rights. undoubtedly, california has incorrect listing on the caci. that we are reviewing a grant of summary judgment in favor anything they otherwise could do." id. at 1179. as we health & safety code 1522.1(a); see id. 1502(b). simi- procedure to remove their listing on the database as suspected challenge this listing, and no way for them to be removed tion to determine if the humphries should be eligible for a being falsely named as a suspected child abuser on an official individuals that pose a danger to children becomes less effec- 15091humphries v. county of los angeles deleterious effect of a bad reputation. by operation of law, allegations of child abuse. the need for such investigations-- pected child abuse and neglect either to a law enforcement 13 investigator and agency that conducted the investigation are their neighbors and their employers. indeed, with the same to granting a number of rights and benefits. these rights community center offering child care and a variety of other gible burden on her employment prospects." id. at 999, 1001. ment, a license, or custody than valmonte experienced under on april 17, 2001, the day after the humphries were acts underlying the reports that led to their inclusion. thus, the issue in light of this opinion, on remand the district court shall make caci, and the seizure and subsequent placement of the hum- plaint originally included eight counts based on state and fed- ably be expected to choose the latter. we do not mean to u.s. 194, 201 (2001). there is no question that the humph- by the sealing orders and california penal code 851.8. because we hold enced the caci and become charged with undertaking an future. id. at 696. the court found that this harm to davis' process "because canra provides no procedure by which extinguish the humphries' rights or status. agencies that child abusers for the purposes of the caci. becker indicated hesitant to issue that benefit. as in valmonte, the humphries or appealing an agency's independent determination. as we discuss in has been reported to the [caci]." id. 11169(b). the evidence contained in the caci is erroneous or amation, justified the invocation of procedural safeguards." tive if a larger and larger percentage of the population errone- manager at the florence crittenton center in los angeles analysis. of summary judgment to the county and remand for further [4] as the district court found, being labeled a child abuser how many "false positives" reporting agencies receive. see of the information provided is accurate and does not conduct of justice ("ca doj") a written report "of every case it inves- tions. see, e.g., withrow v. larkin, 421 u.s. 35, 47 (1975). supervisor who warned him not to repeat his actions in the 901(a) (2008). nothing we have said here infringes on the ability of the which they had been arrested, and ordered the arrest records 134 a/d and 134 b/e, place all of the students in a child care not imagine that an agency would issue the license to a person caci is any more burdensome than the process due in any ed." the agency must be prepared to contradict the investigat- will provide 24-hour care for a child or children in ified immunity for acting in good faith reliance on state law. 3 of child abuse, may not adjudicate those allegations for place- dawn aborn humphries, would allow the humphries to challenge their listing on the a resource family, id. 16519.5(d)(1)(a)(i). these benefits tigator who had made the original determination that their including a hotline for addressing erroneous listings, a formal humphries' procedural due process rights, in violation of 42 ii. analysis and adjudicative functions necessarily creates an a framework under which agencies reflexively check the stig- est at stake is essentially coextensive with their argument in a license to or otherwise approving any individual to care for as a preliminary matter, the appellees contend that the problem. even if an individual is ultimately successful and evidence contrary to detective wilson's investigation. so far cedure. however, california's standard for referring names to points to the nonexistent: problems with the child abuse we review a district court's grant of summary judgment de novo. tangible burden on legal rights, if they have not committed the interest has been violated. a tangible burden exists in this cases the court found stigma. constantineau, 400 u.s. at has conducted an active investigation and determined that the fornia law mandates that "[v]olunteers shall complete a may be "submitted into evidence" on "a showing of good cause" in a civil valmonte, because there is no requirement in california that legal right or benefit of the state and subject themselves to an useful it becomes as an effective tool for protecting children by the investigator who conducted the investigation to be 15053humphries v. county of los angeles 15089humphries v. county of los angeles statutory sections]. stances." california ex rel. lockyer v. f.e.r.c., 329 f.3d 700, york's experience, it is that california's caci has the poten- 15088 humphries v. county of los angeles ers brought suit to clear their names and argued that county vidual are unfounded. as a practical matter, when a person's abused children, and deny the license rather than risk award- cient." ky. dep't of corr. v. thompson, 490 u.s. 454, 460 although canra itself provides no procedure for an indi- compact provision that requires that the information received weight to the fact that the charges were dismissed in court. cies merely because they are not explicitly required by statute the [state department of social services] shall check the although canra itself only requires that the ca doj undertakes its own detailed investigation, it may only perpetu- information available to third parties violates their right to due regarding the obstacles caci places on the opportunity for wendy to pur- this case illustrates these problems. the humphries allege children in either a family day care home or a day care center, that they have been erroneously placed on the caci. in order contacted lasd's family crimes bureau through their attor- employee is unfit or fails to use reasonable care to discover second, even if the agency conducts a thorough investiga- this exchange and without giving the humphries an opportunity to may already be administered by the states." 424 u.s. at 701. margolis v. ryan, 140 f.3d 850, 852 (9th cir. 1998). in conducting such tion, nothing the agency decides affects the caci listing; that check whether potential employees or applicants were on the stitute child abuse or neglect. it appears that "substantiated" censing foster family homes, approving relatives and nonrela- pects with a "susbstantiated" report. agencies to consult a stigmatizing list prior to conferring a [the ca doj] shall be notified in writing of that fact and shall children--reflexively check the caci before issuing a gov- indefinitely. 15092 humphries v. county of los angeles being listed on the index." viewing the evidence in the light most favor- county sheriff's department ("lasd"), obtained probable process claims, the deprivation of a constitutionally protected appointed special advocates, id. 11170(b)(5), and out-of- deprivation in light of the interests of those whose names are tection reform. actual bias of prejudgment that the practice must be right or status recognized by state law, an individual's liberty venting child abuse and that the creation or maintenance of a 04. "the crux of the problem with the procedures," according high risk of erroneous deprivation. 18 f.3d at 995-97, 1003- court for a "factual innocence" determination, but could not challenge law. font of tort law to be superimposed upon whatever systems pursuant to canra, this information [8] viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the ing that various entities consult the caci. the caci is not private groups to consult the database before making hiring, requesting that an investigator review a report or for appeal- sider whether the individual and institutional appellees are to the second circuit, was that new york's " `some credible for a continuing obligation to remove someone from the error rate on the caci, perhaps as high as fifty percent. child f.3d 1172, 1178 (9th cir. 2004); see also valmonte v. bane, guished." paul, 424 u.s. at 711; see also siegert v. gilley, noted above, it appears that california agencies have a general the burden on the humphries is a heavy one: b. governmental interest esther g. boynton (argued), beverly hills, california, for the passion that california condemns the child abuser for his atro- in an attempt by the legislature to demonstrate how many enumerated individuals report instances of known or sus- filed november 5, 2008 official capacity as attorney in the caci pursuant to an "inconclusive or unsubstantiated the humphries it was this misdemeanor complaint that was dismissed on mental interest, including the fiscal and administrative bur- without a warrant, picked up the humphries' two other chil- there is some dispute as to whether the felony charge for which the in a separate argument, charles miller argued that he had has been placed in a difficult situation, because he has been canra states that the ca doj shall make the information tor, who dropped all the charges against them. they went to apply to the due process claims regardless of the underlying liberty inter- employment as a peace officer. vents a submitting agency from enacting some procedure to "branding" an individual as a child abuser). indeed, "no con- information are responsible for obtaining the original percent of those challenging their inclusion on the list were lees") and california attorney general bill lockyer ("state") holic beverages to persons who had become hazardous by rea- all counts of the dependency petition as "not true." report of child abuse was defined as one where the investigator found to conferring a legal right or benefit. as outlined above, cali- gorized as "substantiated"--more likely than not--with "in- having to be subject to an additional investigation, delays, and own experience, court review of agency decisions can be a employers consult the registry; rather, "the information on asked to revisit his initial judgment. detective wilson is, by 15074 humphries v. county of los angeles work off of hunches, disparate patterns, and minute clues to has been governed by the child abuse and neglect reporting determination that the report is "not unfounded" is a very low dence that sheriff baca had any direct involvement in the california, an employer can be held liable for negligent hiring the allegations. we are not unfamiliar with the budgetary and employee's liberty interest would be implicated if he were of any rights secured by the constitution and laws of the stigma from governmental action plus alteration or extin- argument, however, is that even court review cannot solve the u.s. 194, 202 (2001). although the district court did not reach training and employment, an investigator, not an adjudicator. based on the fact that their "sibling has been abused or "that some sort of crime did occur" and refused to give any to reference the caci, in language similar to canra, 1596.607 of the purged." id. we will not infer too much from this limited tial to be overinclusive, and perhaps vastly so. we note that obtains, for example, a child-care license, the court's favor- from the record before us. see redding v. safford unified sch. kramer, 455 u.s. 745, 766 (1982); people v. stockton preg- care field once an indicated finding of child abuse or neglect investigation to constitute child abuse or neglect . . . based upon evidence ble residents from abuse, but that interest is not harmed by a dence." additionally, as we previously noted, even california claims. the humphries demanded damages for the constitu- can challenge inclusion on the caci, and to what extent adoptive cases." id. 11170(e)(1). thus, it appears that if able to a broad array of government agencies, employers, and disciplinary power over a child or children, or who december 2000 and march 2001, periods that corresponded occurred; (2) "inconclusive," meaning there is insufficient wise, it was deemed "unfounded," expunged from the central complaint sufficiently allege the issue by stating that "the order . . . adequately implemented. 1200, 1209-10 (9th cir. 1994). the california system, which tionally protected liberty interest in a relationship with their plaintiff can show that, as a practical matter, the law creates the attention of [his] supervisor." id. at 696-97. inal error is too great. discussed above, 11165.12 has since been amended to define a "substan- year-old daughter from a previous marriage, took their car and about the low threshold for putting names on the caci and receives the information and rely on the agency or other enti- conferral of legal rights or benefits under california law, even caci. id. at 7. we echo the second circuit's observation: for the ninth circuit with a limited budget, presented with the choice of thoroughly ries had never been arrested at all, such that there were no 851.8 arrest the caci--"not unfounded"--is, if anything, more encom- committed by a person acting under color of state law; and (2) obtaining a license or employment in child care, id. bear a substantial burden, embedded in canra, to justify caci check prior to obtaining clearance to volunteer or teach humphries on the caci, with all of its legal consequences. are hesitant to seek these opportunities for fear that the caci tors in this situation. the due process clause does not impose c. removal from the caci the humphries then successfully petitioned the criminal if there is a qualified immunity issue, we must still consider tifying dangerous individuals. thus, the more false informa- unlawful in the situation he confronted." saucier v. katz, 533 of children." id. at 1297; see also ala. code 26-14-8(d) shall not contain any reports that are determined to be pute or expunge their caci listing or to prevent disclosures to review, and detective wilson has none of the usual checks abuse cases, presumably an agency investigation and child the fourteenth amendment because identified individuals are that the fact that charges were filed "would indicate to us that services. bernice williams, the human resources manager at 14 charges was a "court dismissal." us that an agency, in reality, can or will regularly engage in paul, the plaintiff's picture appeared on a flyer of individuals conferred. if craig or wendy humphries sought a license to been properly presented to the district court and was not prop- court found, that the humphries were directly affected in their on august 29, 2001, the humphries' criminal case was dis- additional procedural safeguards. as we evaluate this factor, state in its capacity as employer might be considered respon- destroy their arrest records indicates that the disposition of the torture as the court explained in paul, when the chief of police in the los angeles county superior court, charging the humph- been a high rate of error in determinations." valmonte, 18 [13] the record is devoid of any systematic study of the for drawing independent conclusions regarding the lockyer, attorney general, in his 115, 115-16 (2004) (describing the case of a grandmother one of the agencies authorized by statute to receive [caci] information" in addition to the harm already dealt to the humphries' rep- two children declared dependent children of the juvenile court broad conclusion reached by the district court. thus, insofar as the need individuals will be erroneously listed on the caci, and that need to create a per se bar to employment; it is sufficient that all the state law counts on a rule 12(b)(6) motion. in the "defamatory per se" and implicitly finding stigma by holding tution, see burt v. county of orange, 15 cal. rptr. 3d 373, 381-82 (cal. ordering the county of los angeles to notify the ca doj in writing the known or suspected child abuser that he or she ("the caci"), a database of known or suspected child abus- stantiated" child abusers. in order to protect the children that guards of their liberty interest established by the state are con- eligibility to work or volunteer at a local community center. dismissed as "unfounded"--false or inherently improbable-- disqualified from adjudicating." id. at 52. such a proposition falsely accused, but by their children and extended families, family approval process" in lieu of existing processes for "li- 15063humphries v. county of los angeles the humphries also argue that the district court erred in failing to give is maintained by means of a computerized data bank. see sparse. nevertheless, as a practical matter, it is difficult to sue her credentials. phries' children in temporary protective custody. also has access to caci information. cal. penal code tal liberty interest in preserving family association. id. at issue in view of its ruling." if the parties provide a reason for addressing cution, licensing, placement of a child, employment 435-37; paul, 424 u.s. at 697, 701 (stating that imputing [one agency] should be purged because the supporting docu- los angeles, california, for the defendant-appellee. central index (caci), 4 whittier j. child & fam. advoc. upon [caci] information." id. 11 we recognize that being listed on the caci may not fully honesty and integrity in those serving as adjudica- affirmed in part; reversed in part and request to detective wilson. in may 2002, the humphries reputation was not sufficient to create a liberty interest. id. at cal. welf. & inst. code 361.4(c). finally, california has paz's examinations of s.h.'s entire body with no sign of abuse. neverthe- phries.14 experience, they had a pretty good idea--and were told, "if 11165.12(b). an "inconclusive report" means that "the requires that plaintiffs' arrest records be sealed and scheduled for future rights. 436 u.s. 658, 694 (1978). the district court did not immunity. legal right or status. rather, paul provides that stigma-plus deemed "indicated" and went into the central register; other- supreme court clarified that procedural due process protec- october 19, 2007--pasadena, california and an entry made on the caci, "the agency shall also notify inquiry is made "case-by-case based on the total circum- the humphries initiated this action in federal district court investigation of a caci listing to determine if a person should we disagree. the caci requires agencies to undergo the impediment" or a "tangible burden" to being hired. id. at their listing on the caci may seek redress in the legal system humphries based on any report from lasd. the humphries to balance (1) the private interest affected by the official not result in formal charges or convictions. again, we under- threshold. as we explained above, canra defines an "un- and ansbery and sheriff baca on the grounds of qualified that satisfies the "plus" test. subject to: applying for custody of a relative's child, becom- foster or adoptive parent or relative caregiver for placement to refuse to enforce it." grossman v. city of portland, 33 f.3d we do not question, for example, that california has a sig- occurred; or (3) "unfounded," meaning the report is false, counts as "not true."8 its own "independent conclusions." in addition, even if the "stigma-plus" test. siegert v. gilley, 500 u.s. 226, 233-34 notified that they were listed in the caci. the notice stitutionally insufficient to protect their rights. ky. dep't of to 42 u.s.c. 1983. they alleged that three actions by cali- which is determined not to be unfounded," but that the license. id. at 996. the court found that because agencies and and the low standard of proof required for a report to be cate- individuals listed on the caci might have a legitimate basis to receive caci information. with the eleventh circuit's holding that there is no "plus." such a holding v. eldridge, 424 u.s. 319, 335 (1976). mathews instructs us psychology from the university of california at los angeles. that a liberty interest may be implicated "where a person's [16] we wish to be clear: we do not adopt the proposition be periodically renewed in order to maintain her current [2] the humphries argue that appellees violated their a report is "not unfounded" merely means that the investigator moving party, no genuine issues of material fact remain. id. mentation was no longer maintained at the local level." child humphries, we conclude that california has implemented a id. nevertheless, we think the burden has been met in this rights or benefits, makes the chances of receiving a benefit broam v. bogan, 320 f.3d 1023, 1032 (9th cir. 2003); see "unfounded." we understand the need for investigators who attendant upon that deprivation were constitutionally suffi- bybee, circuit judge: humphries' attempt to satisfy the "plus" test is foreclosed by affect on the humphries' caci listing. interest in having a limited process by which an individual all claims. the district court denied appellees' motion for code 1526 (providing a hearing after the denial of a put certain information on the caci, and effectively mandat- kind of child abuse, even if there is no record of conviction. fore, likely to be perpetuated through an informal appeal. ing agency to conduct its own investigation and to "draw[ ] accidental trauma, with extremity contusions." matizing listing--whether by internal regulation or custom-- tion available to a variety of other agencies, and the humph- dure for expungement from the list. id. at 995-97. when the this first avenue of obtaining relief, at best an informal pro- will impose administrative and fiscal burdens on california. search the caci and conduct an additional investigation prior 15072 humphries v. county of los angeles wilson, individually and in his referred to information that ccld was permitted to disclose. based on [caci]." id. 1596.877(b).2 system whereby the caci is reflexively consulted prior to the will not be harmed in her pursuit of a teaching credential as a result of check the list on its face. the canra both stigmatizes the a preponderance, but more than a scintilla. canra further action; (2) the risk of erroneous deprivation and the probable lated the humphries' constitutional rights. therefore, we deny u.s. at 711 (emphasis added). ing guardians or adoptive parents (inside or outside of cali- under state law. second, california has made caci informa- appellants craig and wendy humphries are living every (including the finding of "factually innocent"). faced with the county sheriff's department; opinion mark d. rutter, carpenter, rothans & dumont, los angeles, any report that subsequently proves unfounded. cal. penal against them is disclosed to, and used by, licensing agencies" missed.5 11170(b)(5). taining files on them in the caci. the state from retaining or disclosing the caci records on the we evaluate the process that california provides persons baca, individually and in his fourteenth amendment). finding of "factual innocence" was not admissible as evidence under cali- dist. no. 1, 531 f.3d 1071, 1078, 1087 (9th cir. 2008) (en [10] a person who believes he has been wrongfully listed these issues left open in miller. same investigation to independently establish eligibility for a without process of law. we agree.11 court under california penal code 851.8 for orders finding (1989) (internal citations omitted). the district court found 15084 humphries v. county of los angeles for expungement. if we can learn any lesson from new 1059, 1070 (9th cir. 2006). respond, the district court found that "it is clear that wendy cannot and what information was there--although, given their recent district court had found no constitutional violation). support of their liberty interest. from all we have said, the caci, agencies will have to conduct an additional investiga- right are statutorily created. in paul, individual officers inde- the county summary judgment on this issue. first, we note that by the time the decision maker has refer- allowed the case to be filed for misdemeanor consideration. according to risk of individuals being placed on the caci list who do not the more difficult issue is whether the humphries can sat- their caci listing. they will remain on the caci until the who were suspected of shoplifting. 424 u.s. at 695. in both app. 1988) (finding the goals of detecting and preventing stigmatizing list and investigate any adverse information prior believe that in this context, canra asks more of a state or approving adoptive families." id. 16519.5(a). the approval tion," id. 11169(a), which involves investigating the allega- grandchildren, the millers could not allege "plus" on those some persons adversely affected by decisions resulting from conclusive" presumably encompassing everything in between, detective of the los angeles the caci. canra does provide that "[i]f a report has previ- employment--a renewal process that requires her to apply to ries could petition him to revisit his decision. we refer to detective wil- dens of additional procedures. id. the procedural due process 15083humphries v. county of los angeles 15077humphries v. county of los angeles (2004) (rehnquist, c.j., dissenting from denial of certiorari); could not affirmatively say that the report is "false." this is simply relied on the fact that charges were filed as evidence notwithstanding the findings of two california courts that seeking to obtain custody of a relative's children, and secur- 15076 humphries v. county of los angeles more importantly, california makes the caci database avail- of law. required by canra to consult the caci, they may, as a county of los angeles; leroy the entire time" and agreed that the humphries criminal case child abuse are a "compelling" government interest). never- system which seeks to clear those falsely accused of child california tribunals had found that the allegations underlying under the fourteenth amendment were violated, we next con- unlike detective wilson, the county is not entitled to qual- make this information available, other statutory provisions dency court, which found that the allegations were "not true" two hits on the caci matching her name). ty's "independent conclusions regarding the quality of the evi- v. department of social services, if a "policy or custom" of the humphries argue that the district court erred in disregarding the not be so fortunate as to have faced formal proceedings and id. at 708-09. employment positions dealing with children, cal. penal how an agency is to ensure that it has accurate records or who ing a variety of state-issued licenses or other benefits. for in the caci, it would provide no benefit to california in iden- disregarding these limitations temporarily, it is not clear to listing and continuing to list them on the caci, without any tutes a viable "plus." we now take the opportunity to address 15068 humphries v. county of los angeles neglected." on april 19, the county filed a dependency peti- some agencies to search a stigmatizing listing and conduct an a. stigma implemented a pilot program through the state department of he is not required to respond to the humphries or abusers and placed on california's child abuse central index spell out here precisely what kind of procedure california a hearing on june 12, the juvenile court ordered that the hum- report" resulting in their listing on the caci. our determination as to the henry j. friendly, "some kind of hearing," 123 u. pa. l. time constraints that hamper government agencies. an agency false, [2] to be inherently improbable, [3] to involve an acci- the investigator . . . ") (emphasis added). whether this defini- both children denied any fear of abuse or mistreatment and in his favor. we have held that "[l]iability under 1983 arises adequacy of the process offered by appellees--additional the submitting agencies are also responsible for removing 924, 930 (1997), but we note for purposes of determining the inclusion in the caci, arguing that the appellees' conduct in rebutting the presumption. other applicants, however, may 15064 humphries v. county of los angeles [17] in sum, we are not persuaded that california has pro- against them. we hold that it does. proceedings consistent with this opinion. we affirm the dis- them, including the california courts. they went to the depen- reports that are determined to be unfounded. id. eral ways. first, state statutes mandate that licensing agencies services determined whether an allegation of child abuse was a residential home or facility, pursuant to [various which may allow the ca doj to enact some procedure new york, for the amicus national coalition for child pro- an agency or other entity that is required to consult the caci then dismissed the remainder of the humphries' case after learning of dr. cost and time of investigating seven-year old allegations, health and safety code allows dss to deny a "trustline applicant" if there sive drinker or a shoplifter. indeed, to be accused of child this is demonstrated clearly in the humphries' case. although the having decided that the humphries' due process rights and "inconclusive" reports include everything that is "not vented the lasd from creating an independent procedure that avoid. 15065humphries v. county of los angeles 15080 humphries v. county of los angeles county sheriff; michael l. no. 05-56467 the humphries were "factully innocent" and the charges "not require the state to offer process to a person prior to the depri- placement services, or considering potential court appointed [7] we find that a tangible burden also exists where the ries' listing on the caci, the humphries sought an injunction detective wilson requested that los angeles county file a canra fails to specify who is supposed to determine that a millers had no "substantive due process right to family integ- government index is defamatory." miller v. california, 355 penal code 11165.12(a). effectively, a determination that der. the state has not provided any evidence that the process good name, reputation, honor, or integrity is at stake because risk of erroneous deprivation because an agency may transmit paul). likely to presume the integrity of the information found on the legal right or status without using the word "must"--the word of canra, a california task force reported on a pilot pro- result of the dependency proceeding (including the finding of 695. in contrast to the mandatory nature of the statute in con- home, and the millers were eventually named the children's information provided is accurate and does not conduct a sepa- for inclusion in the caci. see id. 11169(a), (c), duty to maintain accurate records and to advise ca doj of phries have taken advantage of every procedure available to tee that the licensing entity will conduct an investigation anew vided to persons "making inquiries for purposes of pre- nificant interest in maintaining even "inconclusive" reports, 11165.12(a) (emphasis added); see id. 11165.12(b) (a berry was in any way involved in the decision to list the hum- his not being branded a child sexual abuser." id. at 1297. as summary judgment in his favor on that claim. abuse or neglect . . . occurred." id. 11165.12(c). both incon- only upon a showing of personal participation by the defen- the risk of erroneous deprivation and the probable value of attorney rejected the attempt to file a felony action against them but responsibility is limited to ensuring that the caci "accurately confirmation questionnaire regarding the humphries' caci ing that the information available on the caci might have an imply that california agencies will not behave honestly or humpries have an interest in not being stigmatized by having from the listing. the humphries have been given no opportu- informed them that if they believed the report was unfounded, report the humphries for listing on the caci. a procedural id. 11170(b)(9)(a). the same provision also applies to out 12 and "inconclusive" reports for inclusion in the caci. is indisputably more stigmatizing than being labeled an exces- trict court's grant of summary judgment to detectives wilson investigating agency submits corrected information to the sys- wilson would undertake at the humphries' request.15 at the bureau and there was no available procedure for them moreover, his judgment is apparently unreviewable except by cal. health and safety code 1522.1(a). that file contains appellees argue that the caci differs from the statute in turn. spelled out. canra offers no procedure for challenging a listing on reports that only hint at abuse, when coupled with other infor- nity to be heard on the caci listing. tions, the more expensive it will be for the agency to disprove forbidden if the guarantee of due process is to be 15086 humphries v. county of los angeles furthermore, because the humphries were listed pursuant to on a case-by-case basis. see, e.g., cal. health & safety dence disclosed." id. 11170(b)(9)(a). thus, for example, it appears that alabama did not mandate that potential stated in her affidavit, "before any adult is cleared to teach at must create. the state has a great deal of flexibility in fashion- abusers plus the loss of significant state benefits, such as theless, the operative question is not whether california has 273a(b), both misdemeanors. although the caci information can apparently be released under these 904 (2008). (2008) (stating that the ca doj "presumes that the substance as no subsequent report containing his or her name is received that a variety of agencies will have access to the caci, and would fail to recognize that in paul the reputational damage occurred "may" in conjunction with a rule or custom of "must" can california; martin stein, alison turner, lillie hsu (argued), 15052 humphries v. county of los angeles individuals in the court appointed special advocate program the plaintiff "was [not] denied any right or status other than of the plaintiff's private supervisor. in contrast, the burdens from them. when a doctor confirmed that the abuse charges child care licensing or employment, adoption, or child place- is sufficiently unpredictable that it was not unreasonable for gation conducted by the submitting agency"). at best, license, or simply denying the license after a cursory investi- error rate in the caci. we do note that in a 2004 self-study 15095humphries v. county of los angeles additional investigation before issuing a license or benefit isfy the "plus" test. the humphries must show that, as the value of additional procedural safeguards; and (3) the govern- if they successfully pressed these remaining liberty interests, we will not sort of state-court tort case that paul feared. mary judgment with regard to their claims relating to their 9 a list of individuals thought to be active in shoplifting. id. at child testimony"). however, given the high stakes in child our decision in miller v. california, 355 f.3d 1172 (9th cir. warrants to seal, detective wilson could have still filed a "substantiated agencies, in turn, are required to conduct "an active investiga- employees, by placing charles miller's name on the caci, which, we acknowledge, are intrusive and difficult to conduct we note that the eleventh circuit, in smith v. siegelman, another state's agencies require caci information for foster tively, detective wilson has been tasked with being investiga- appellees argue that the current procedures present little and incarceration. the humphries appeal the grant of sum- canra implies that reports are subject to correction "by the baca, and detectives wilson and ansberry ("county appel- agency must conduct "an active investigation and determine[ ] by being placed on the caci is "unquestionably stigmatiz- request to detective m. wilson." in other words, the only cumbersome process. what is most troubling about the states' and county parties argue that the juvenile court's "not true" finding does our school, to work at our day care center, or to work or vol- who will therefore be reluctant to hire [them]." 18 f.3d at the humphries' argument in support of their private inter- employer "may" consult. by law, licensing agencies must the report is false, improbable, or accidental. incomplete or california welfare and institutions code 361.4 10 an agency consults the caci and finds adverse information, recourse offered to the humphries was to try to get the inves- in response to the inquiry shall be disclosed and used for no some sort of crime did occur" and the fact that the case was (1976). the humphries argue that the stigma of being listed allow an individual to challenge their listing or seek to have investigator cannot prove to his own satisfaction that they are and a tangible burden on an individual's ability to obtain a the only ones. under the california scheme, detective wilson ries have introduced evidence that those agencies--especially humphries' initial and continued inclusion in the caci, as procedural due process claim. dismissed based on charges that "imposed on him a stigma or their inclusion on the caci. imagine that an agency charged with protecting california's tiated" report as one "determined by the investigator who conducted the viously lived in utah with her biological mother and stepfa- successful. id. at 1003. this confirmed to the court that the employment as a peace-officer, and involvement in adoption 15061humphries v. county of los angeles investigation, prosecution, licensing, placement of a child, the older the evidence, or the more involved the allega- nicanor-romero v. mukasey, 523 f.3d 992, 999 (9th cir. see hamdi v. rumsfeld, 542 u.s. 507, 529 (2004) ("the ger of prank and spite calls. california should investigate such caci is much closer to the new york central register than ple defamation is not a constitutional liberty interest under the (providing that the information in the registry "may be made marsha s. miller, supervising deputy attorney general, paul dental injury, or [4] not to constitute child abuse or neglect." to challenge their listing in the caci. on may 9, 2002, lasd which are reports that are neither "substantiated" nor "un- available to potential employers" but rather that "employers unfounded, it does not have power to expunge the listing.13 collateral estoppel effect to the juvenile court's "not true" determination. have ordered here, they are free on remand to raise those claims before the cussion of the existence of a constitutional violation we con- under california law are not refused merely because of the inc., 97 cal. rptr. 2d 12, 24-25 (cal. ct. app. 2000) ("[i]n the caci pursuant to a "substantiated report"; such a person canra instructs detective wilson how to deal with the hum- requires that the ca doj "shall maintain an index of all 1177. we concluded that miller had shown injury to his repu- that is not to say that investigators do not have to make are "substantiated" and those that are "inconclusive." a "sub- removed from the caci as expeditiously as possible. juvenile court dependency petition to have the humphries' ct. app. 2004); a protected liberty interest in familial privacy and auton- available" to employers).12 register "by operation of law . . . and . . . likely . . . will review of his own decision. the risk of perpetuating any orig- error in the procedures established by the state. sergeant michael becker advised the humphries' attorney central index, such as the caci, is an effective and responsi- case, the existence of such court records, if they could get review. cal. health & safety code 1526; cal. family code 8720. no violation of the humphries' constitutional rights. options. first, he can try to informally persuade the investiga- agencies to consult the caci and perform an independent detective wilson's conclusion that the humphries were "sub- district court and explain why the district court should address them. true for the entire state it is possible that half of the 800,000 mandate that certain agencies consult the caci prior to issu- tional violations resulting from the government's conduct. in unfounded." the agency must submit both "substantiated" first, detective ansberry is entitled to summary judgment 6 dren from their schools and placed them in protective custody.3 nancy control med. clinic, 249 cal. rptr. 762, 772 (cal. ct. son was suitable for employment or other government right. justice system: the accused is presumed to be a child abuser [21] for the reasons described above, canra violates the lees also argue that there is little risk of erroneous deprivation ate any errors contained in the original report, even as it draws court. see, e.g., cal. health & safety code 1526 (provid- a. the criminal case drove to her biological mother's home in utah. s.h. had pre- deprive innocent persons of their "reputation-plus" by main- state agencies making foster care or adoptive decisions, id. under the "stigma-plus" test of paul v. davis, 424 u.s. 693 15056 humphries v. county of los angeles district court may consider the claim. places a burden on their ability to pursue some of their normal argument "would appear to have merit, the court need not address that the contention that the combination of investigative & (h) (renumbered and amended as 5.684 effective jan. 1, 2007). the state carolyn a. kubitschek, lansner & kubitschek, new york, to summarize, we understand section 11169(a), when read review of an adoption denial). the administrative review pro- 156.607. appeal from the united states district court negatives it could place in a single provision, canra then rect the records. the humphries received notice that their have done so should have been made at the time of the juvenile court pro- or any adult who resides or is employed in the home we emphasize that an injury that results merely from sim- dant." taylor v. list, 880 f.2d 1040, 1045 (9th cir. 1989). be a mere investigatory tool. the fact of listing on the caci tion included in a listing index such as the caci, the less abuse report can be triggered by as little as an anonymous a. inclusion in the caci or practices, as discussed below. thus, inclusion in the caci ment." cal. code regs. tit. 11, 907(b) (2008); see also cal. (finding that there is no qualified immunity for local govern- such calumny. voice, it appears that the agency has the duty to correct its important judgments; they do, but these judgments are subject 15082 humphries v. county of los angeles government benefit. the mere fact that agencies in california the humphries have asserted a 1983 claim regarding the warrantless investigate all reports of child abuse. each reported incident find that an agency will necessarily deny the humphries a volunteer at the florence crittenton center in los angeles, a the central district of illinois, sitting by designation. we have explained, the caci is more than a registry that an legally disabled by the listing [on the caci] alone from doing a protected liberty interest is "squarely implicate[d]" under conferred under california law less likely, and practically means for a report to be "false" or "inherently improbable," "may adopt rules governing recordkeeping and reporting," stand the need for law enforcement to rely on hunches and to true." any argument regarding whether the judge should or should not molestation by an employee with a history of this specific in common with the rest of the citizenry." paul, 424 u.s. at similarly requires that [w]henever a child may be or employed in a position dealing with children, obtaining agencies to search the caci prior to issuing a license consti- special advocates--would fail to consult the caci. there is larly, in order to work as a volunteer in crisis nurseries, cali- not given a fair opportunity to challenge the allegations phries in the caci, or to keep them on the caci. that "agency members who participate in an investigation are inclusion. see goss v. lopez, 419 u.s. 565, 578 (1975); mation, can reveal patterns that might not otherwise be in the caci is well designed to do so. we consider each in 15060 humphries v. county of los angeles it available.1 stantiated report" means that "the investigator who conducted example, the humphries have expressed a desire to work or social services ("dss") to create a "child-centered resource the humphries also introduced evidence indicating that reports, and it can--and perhaps should--retain records on them "factually innocent" of the felony torture charge,6 is belied by the cases and the "incredible variety of adminis- statute faces the same problem as the original agency determi- them before the licensing agency, might go a long way to guishment of "a right or status previously recognized by state in paul itself, the louisville chief of police placed davis' they were arrested, and had their other children taken away in such files. once california effectively required agencies to for the misdemeanor charges should be dismissed in further- retains all reports that are "not unfounded," it assumes a sub- understandably, notified individuals who believe that they maintenance of the caci violates the due process clause of 1994). in valmonte, the second circuit heard a challenge to held that the alabama scheme was governed by paul because is the deprivation of such an interest without due process of status which, combined with the injury resulting from the def- that it does--but rather whether california has a significant who are dependents of the court, nor of a liberty interest in 851.8(i) is qualified by 851.8(k), which provides that sealed records the humphries' nightmarish encounter with the canra agencies charged with ensuring the safety and well-being of canra defines two other categories of reports, those that authorized individuals or entities to obtain and review the united states court of appeals charles t. ansberry, individually california offers insufficient means for correcting those ously becomes listed due to unsubstantiated claims. to clarify court found "that no reasonable cause exists to believe that the decision regarding the listed person on its own "independent unfounded" if the investigator determines that it meets none reports of child abuse and severe neglect submitted pursuant recognized by state law was distinctly altered or extin- reflects the report it receives from the submitting agency"--it a constitutional deprivation." wallis v. spencer, 202 f.3d tutes a liberty interest, of which they may not be deprived abuse from the state's databases. canra creates too great a indicated their desire to return home. custody of the children central index or caci. cal. penal code 11170(a)(2). cali- booked them on the single charge of felony torture under cal- system began on march 17, 2001, when s.h., craig's fifteen circuit judges, and richard mills,* district judge. the second circuit explained that "[t]his is not just the intan- caci records." insofar as this issue is relevant to future proceedings, the on the caci has two possible remedies under canra. first, that the humphries' listing on the caci did not deprive them became, in substance, a judgment against those listed. b. the humphries' nightmare child abuser. these costs are not only borne by the individuals the tendency to overinclude. as an initial matter then, we con- that a report is unfounded. what it currently provides will substantially impair the state's on the list who do not belong there." id. at 1004. again, report is not unfounded." cal. penal code 11169(a). tation by itself is not a protected liberty interest under the the list. thus, although any impairment to davis' employment ries' listing on the caci occurs under color of state law. and there is insufficient evidence to determine whether child cerning any person who is an applicant for licensure ously been filed which subsequently proves to be unfounded, child abuse or neglect . . . based upon evidence that makes it 15047humphries v. county of los angeles inal evaluation, the humphries have no statutory recourse cal. stat. 1171, and since 1988, the maintenance of the caci --is obvious. nor does anything we have said undermine the without checking the caci could potentially lead to tort lia- addition to damages, on the allegations related to the humph- with their grandchildren. id. at 1173-74. we held that the 15041 them. the humphries then petitioned the criminal court, made." cal. penal code 851.8(b). nation: it cannot end the stigma or the tangible burden on to create such a legal framework. canra explicitly provides ther and their three younger children. in june 2000, s.h's work for casa, or adopt. listing the humphries on the state statutes creating the caci, instructing state officers to standards under this statute include "utilizing a check of the humphries find themselves. under california law, they could petition a general of the state of california, the state will make a mistake?" in this case, we ask, "after 15048 humphries v. county of los angeles employers, or law enforcement entities, we will generally refer to these inadvertently, and not as the result of a statutory mandate. ing, for example, a child care license to a listed individual. and review the humphries' 2001 "file prepared by the child a. procedural due process or suspected child abuser that he has been reported to the 1. the humphries' arrest and inclusion in the caci v. cient delivery of primary services such as protecting children. victim's allegations, on april 11, 2001, michael l. wilson, a plaintiffs-appellants. a child abuse report only after it "has conducted an active the due process clause may demand a separation of func- ceration, the humphries' initial and continued inclusion in the caci listing, however, remains. vation of a liberty interest, see gilbert v. homar, 520 u.s. ("cctc"). the humphries have introduced evidence indicat- 16, detective wilson, accompanied by fellow detective caci is made available the humphries will deal with, the agency is going to start with tion and determining whether the incident is "substantiated, undertaking an investigation to disprove whatever evidence had the proceedings resolved so clearly in their favor. in the act ("canra"), cal. penal code 11164-11174. tion of an applicant seeking employment with the program or the separation of powers on the state or local governments. cess offers some check on the system. as we know from our mental interests first, followed by a discussion of the risk of tect california's youth, hiring or giving a license to someone practical matter, be required to do so by their own regulations caci check. protective agency which investigated the child abuse report." account to be true, and from the record it appears that the humphries were james t. schiavenza, senior assistant attorney general, statutes to administrative agencies, private licensing agencies, private by the state; the second examines whether the procedures independent conclusions." unless the agency unilaterally reported the information to the caci to correct its reports. as issuing a license to a person listed on the caci. in sum, any liberty interest in both their good name and using it to obtain [caci]." id. 16519.5(d)(1)(a)(i). based on these provi- collect bits and pieces of information to establish a history or an agency maintain a written record explaining why the per- pleteness, and retention of the reports," thus suggesting that nia, for the defendants-appellees. care for children, the licensing agency would have to obtain as of 2004, there were an estimated 810,000 suspects on the wilson that he ought not abide by canra's provisions and canra requires that at the time the agency forwards the employers would learn of valmonte's inclusion on the central rejected the attempt to file a felony action against them, and only allowed sufficient procedure by which the humphries could challenge in conjunction with section 11165.12, to require agencies to 1. the child abuse and neglect reporting act available process to challenge that listing. in procedural due 15087humphries v. county of los angeles opinion applies when a right or status is "altered or extinguished." 424 ing a hearing after the denial of a license); cal. family code to compel the submission of a report to be something less than 15057humphries v. county of los angeles on the caci. ccld will "share information" with cctc if requested. in response, the weakness, conferring investigative and adjudicative fourteenth amendment right to procedural due process by tors; and it must convince that, under a realistic of other employment opportunities." board of regents v. that lasd's report to the caci is unfounded, and to prohibit prior to conferring a legal right or benefit. canra appears nia. she possesses a number of teaching credentials that must there are many different ways a person can find themself files and thus to decide if they are unfounded. see id. caci search before even having an opportunity to volunteer cess exists in which the person seeking review must contact est asserted. nevertheless, if the humphries believe that these interests phone call. it is apparent in such a system there is a real dan- possible denial of a benefit under california law due to an any errors made in the initial referral to the caci are, there- investigator who conducted the investigation." id. 11165.12. denied custody of her grandchildren because dss discovered before issuing or denying the license. however, we need not cation has a much more difficult burden of persua- list the humphries in the caci as substantiated child abusers. c. monell liability *the honorable richard mills, senior united states district judge for ity to obtain legal rights. the humphries have asserted the a caci listing, it also means that there are no standards for government benefit, we must disagree. a state can alter a due process analysis that requires a complicated balancing test never indicted on the felony charge. regardless, the petition to seal and constantineau posted the plaintiff's name on a list forbidding reach the merits of these arguments. we also decline to reach the humph- caci does not raise concerns under the due process clause. detective for the family crimes bureau of the los angeles [caci] check." id. 1526.8(b)(2). also, "[p]rior to granting fornia department of justice, office of the attorney general, there is no doubt that california has a vital interest in pre- f.3d at 1004. we conclude that there is a substantial risk that listing. the questionnaire was answered by a civilian clerical reach the ears of an employer. this case does not resemble the plaintiffs-appellants, canra defines a report as "unfounded" if it is "determined and destroyed.7 1526.8(b)(2), receiving placement or custody of a relative's ries with corporal injury to a child, cal. penal code canra requires the agency to conduct an investigation and due process right and turn the fourteenth amendment into "a a "substantiated report," they will remain listed on the caci a. the statutory scheme livescan screening, including a [ca doj caci] check." we where the statute does not necessarily require agencies to sider whether the individual defendants are entitled to quali- tit. 11, 902 (2008). the decision maker "shall not act solely only occurred because the flyer happened to have "c[o]me to not retain the report." id. 11169(a). the statute does not ment to decide whether to file formal charges. however, these there is no reason to assume that any agency would attempt equally apparent that california can have no interest in main- cious acts, it has an interest in protecting its citizens against credible evidence" supporting a complaint, the report was wendy has also indicated a desire to pursue a degree in witnesses in order to satisfy itself that the original charges ing. the district court found that the humphries' contention that the than our case. if alabama did require employers to consult the alabama dence of or did not consider the possibility that as a result of ers. as the humphries quickly learned, california offers no avoiding stigma and alteration of a legal right has already that stigma alone is insufficient). being labeled a child abuser people v. bernstein, 243 cal. rptr. 363, 367 (cal. ct. app. 5 committed by subordinates the supervisor is liable only if he 15085humphries v. county of los angeles our holding is consistent with paul. in paul, the court was that inclusion on a child abuse registry damages reputation by child-care licenses or employment. the processes in place in tus have been altered. first, california has explicitly required ries from obtaining a license for child care, but it does guaran- ended up on the state's child abuse database. the caci. the only "plus" alleged in miller was a fundamen- you believe the report is unfounded . . . please address your our point through an extreme example, it is obvious that if one see owen v. city of independence, 445 u.s. 622, 638 (1980) sion for removing an individual who was originally listed in child abuse and severe neglect," known as the child abuse 11170(a)(1). more, california regulations make it "the responsibility of accordingly, the eleventh circuit 500 u.s. 226, 233 (1991) (reaffirming that an injury to repu- employment, licenses, volunteer opportunities, and even child the humphries' procedural due process rights, and we grant humphries do not suffer the stigma of being labeled child sons of their "excessive drinking." 400 u.s. at 434-35. in applicants and employees against the caci" and goes on to note that the basic part of [s.h's] testimony that she was injured during vidual to challenge a caci listing, nothing in the statute pre- rate investigation to verify the accuracy of the investigation the county deprived the humphries of their constitutional 11170(a)(2). canra also contemplates that the ca doj quality of the evidence disclosed, and its sufficiency inclusion on the list results in an added burden on employers known as the "stigma-plus test." see hart v. parks, 450 f.3d required to consult the registry as a matter of internal rule or ceedings. 11170(a)(2) ("the submitting agencies are responsible for [9] the humphries must show that the procedural safe- caci places a tangible burden on their ability to exercise this within that time period. id. 11170(a)(3). there is no provi- of child abuse must then be categorized as (1) "substantiated," ing "[t]he problem of unreliable, induced, and even imagined of any constitutionally protected liberty or property interest.10 7 united states. we find that it does. accordingly, after our dis- report itself. id. 11170(a)(2); cal. code regs. tit. 11, 904 center or home, cal. health & safety code 1596.877(b), mally charged, the agency would have to reinvestigate the doctor's concern about possible sexual abuse, charles mil- tem. there is no effective procedure for the humphries to caci listing. he alone makes the initial judgment to place the placed in the home of a relative, or a prospective 2004). in miller, we confronted different questions concern- also sought a judicial declaration that canra and the coun- 1. persuading the investigator. first, attempting to per- judgment by the state and county parties, we assume the humphries' whalen v. united states, 445 u.s. 684, 689 n.4 (1980). but 15059humphries v. county of los angeles gation so that it can spend its resources elsewhere, can reason- their way into the caci, there is a real risk that people, like more likely than not that child abuse or neglect occurred." id. investigation before granting a number of licenses and bene- any reports it cannot determine to be "unfounded." when it the center stated, by affidavit, that all adults must undergo a 15090 humphries v. county of los angeles consuming and drain limited resources, resulting in less effi- inclusion on the caci, and the standards for retaining a name fornia), obtaining a license for child care, becoming licensed [19] mathews requires that we consider the risk of error in similarly, wendy currently works as a special education unlikely that an investigator will, in effect, reverse himself. sion is limited to those "stigma-plus" situations where both ment of the merits of the child abuse report." cal. code regs. the process required to determine that charges against an indi- agencies or entities responsible for providing for the safety caci. cal. penal code 273a(a), and torture, id. 206. on april any errors introduced at the time information is posted to with s.h.'s claims of abuse. on all these occasions, dr. paz eral claims, but on april 14, 2003, the district court dismissed just haphazard, second-hand information that happens to community care licensing division ("ccld")] check all child care of these four criteria. was then transferred to the county department of children and family services, which placed the children in foster care. less, this district court "review" of detective wilson's judgment had no requiring the arrest records pertaining to that charge be sealed tigates of known or suspected child abuse or severe neglect occurred." id. 11165.12(b). that makes it more likely than not that child abuse or neglect . . . employer where the employment involves care or supervision fornia created the caci via canra and explicitly requires james v. selna, district judge, presiding that a finding of factual innocence "shall not be admissible as evidence in that the agency might still confer the government benefit after son believes he has been reported in error, he has three abuser that he or she has been reported to the [caci]." cal. 11170(a)(3). we ask "considering the current process, what is the chance counsel the conduct violated a right secured by the constitution and "agency shall not forward a report to the [ca doj] unless it greines, martin, stein & richland llp, los angeles, califor- [6] we hold that where a state statute creates both a stigma action brought by the arrested person against the arresting officers or law significant, and we will not treat it as such; however, it does investigation and determined that the report is not unfound- case was "substantiated" to change his mind. nothing in occurs at the hands of the parents, who have an obligation to disclosed, and its sufficiency for making decisions regarding factual innocence determination in this opinion. here, even if the humph- summary judgment on the 1983 claim regarding the war- investigative report from the reporting agency, and fits and further injure their already damaged reputation. for required to sort through claims of an erroneous listing in the report to the ca doj for inclusion in the caci, "the agency in october 2003, the ca doj asked lasd to complete a and balances to rely on. in the course of a criminal investiga- 2. judicial proceedings exonerating the humphries child, cal. welf. & inst. code 361.4(c), or qualifying as identifying craig and wendy humphries as child abuse sus- seriously and presume that the person has committed some listed on the caci--if it considers doing so at all--without rev. 1267 (1975) (discussing the various forms that a hearing in the caci available to a broad range of third parties for a becker did when asked to review detective wilson's file. he which found them "factually innocent" of the charges for ducted on all persons over 18 years of age living in gations for "peace officers, child care licensing or employ- additional investigation before that right or benefit will be tor who reported it in the first place. second, he can wait until ernment license or benefit. thus, being listed on the caci 1001-02. see also dupuy v. samuels, 397 f.3d 493, 503-04, harm--being listed on the caci alters their rights in two gen- test, of which they may not be deprived without due process a review, we must ensure that the district court correctly applied the law listed on the caci under the three part test set out in mathews the investigation" determined that the report "constitute[d] in informational and familial privacy arising under the california consti- and no discussion of the standard of proof by which that "indicated" or "unfounded." id. at 995. if there was "some of the state--the answer is "quite likely." [3] in wisconsin v. constantineau, the supreme court held else other than detective wilson is required to respond to the defendants-appellees. from child abuse. in addition, there is a great human cost in [12] california contends that requiring any process beyond the agency has no power to correct the caci listing. the per- california has effectively required agencies to consult the id. although this entire process is spelled out in the passive ing an investigator's refusal to revisit a prior report. thus, for tion report identifying the humphries' case as a "substantiated not properly before the court because the claim was not made in the com- names had been referred to the caci. they were not told approximately 50 percent of caci listings originating from inadequate investigations must be reported for listing on the approving, any individual to care for children, the [state lasd, or the district attorney's office may review his judg- is evidence of "substantiated child abuse." cal. health & safety code entitled to qualified immunity. we have held that "an officer the scope of canra is not limited to california institu- utation by appearing on a list of actual or suspected child given the high standard of proof required for a report to be conducted by the submitting agency." cal. code regs. tit. 11, occurred. of course, the due process clause does not always tion in the caci is specifically made available to other identi- ought to be before someone other than the official who ini- thus, we conclude that the humphries' legal rights or sta- dismissed "would not negate the entries" into the caci. able disposition has no apparent impact on the individual's [18] here, we do not have comparable statistical data on (explaining that "the injury associated with the [new york] integrity of officials such as detective wilson. we simply 1522.1(a), volunteering in a crisis nursery, id. c. epstein (argued), deputy attorney general, state of cali- and reported that the humphries had been abusing her for sev- vides that "[p]rior to granting a license to, or otherwise meaning it is more likely than not that child abuse or neglect founded report" as a report that the investigator determines statutory consequences of being listed on the caci consti- 1. deprivation of a protected liberty interest 711 (9th cir. 2003). we will consider the private and govern- errors. to track down this information on its own. in the humphries' on the caci after it has been challenged ought to be carefully "[i]t [is] difficult to fathom how such a huge percentage of in making their licensing decisions, see, e.g., cal. health & and they desired a review, that they should address their 15042 humphries v. county of los angeles updated by the [ca doj] and shall not contain any reports employment caused by a statutory impediment established by we acknowledge that this figure is not necessarily statistically children--through granting or denying licenses to work in the presumption that it must deny the license unless it finds without their knowledge, drove to her mother's home in utah, 8720 (providing for judicial review of an adoption denial). beyond that provided by canra. id. 11170(a)(1). to this well as the 1983 claim arising out of the humphries' arrest participated in or directed the violations. id. there is no evi- the very least, however, california must promptly notify a we cannot turn a blind eye to the actions of these other agen- as we can determine, the humphries' file does not include the the registry is made available to an employer or potential this concern that "a hearing would be required each time the 15062 humphries v. county of los angeles abuse and neglect reporting act task force report 24 plaint. we find that the allegations contained in paragraphs 5 and 6 of the soning in valmonte v. bane persuasive. 18 f.3d 992 (2d cir. fits. this requirement places a tangible burden on a legal right inconclusive, or unfounded," cal. code regs. tit. 11, cause a check of the [caci] . . . to be requested provides that the agency shall send the california department opinion by judge bybee a plaintiff need only show that there is a question of fact unteer anywhere within our facility, he or she must undergo who acts in reliance on a duly-enacted statute . . . is ordinarily listing someone on the caci. in the first place, a reporting detective wilson had actually left the department before the humph- child in the past. as bernice williams, the human resources a volunteer position as a court appointed special advocate" example, california health and safety code 1522.1 pro- unfounded." id. 11170(a)(1). by using the passive voice, if he knows the employee is unfit, or has reason to believe the central register. id. the agency or business could hire the on april 18, 2001, detective wilson filed a complaint in b. qualified immunity equally deprive a citizen of a liberty interest giving rise to a 15070 humphries v. county of los angeles is not clear what a person seeking review is to do if the inves- the ca doj explicitly "presumes that the substance of the light of the individuals' interest and the government's interest. reviews are likely to take place before any information is tribute this flyer, nor did any law require employers to check no particular process is required prior to the agency "drawing reverse its report labeling the humphries as "substantiated" places an added burden on entities wishing to confer legal b. the juvenile court case was sent to the ca doj, which in turn created a caci listing abuse may be our generation's contribution to defamation per denied an opportunity to be heard on the deprivation. id. at child abusers, and thus no opportunity to clear their names. pendently chose to distribute a leaflet, and the stigmatizing conclusions." cal. penal code 11170(b)(9)(a). further- guardians. id. at 1173-75. in the meantime, as a result of a central register is not simply that it exists, or that the list is rather, it is a specific deprivation of her opportunity to seek name appears on the caci, the agency must take that fact humphries and creates an impediment to the humphries' abil- taking the time to conduct an added background investigation. laws of the united states. west v. atkins, 487 u.s. 42, 48 law." 424 u.s. 693, 711 (1976). this holding has come to be quite apparent to us that the same qualified immunity analysis would elsewhere within the lasd. adding additional processes will interfere with the overarch- humphries. if detective wilson refuses to reconsider his orig- conduct.") (internal citations and quotations omitted). once county sheriff's department; bill held under state law[--]the right to purchase or obtain liquor that are determined to be unfounded." cal. penal code taining a system of records that contains incorrect or even (1991). employment, licensing, custody, or other legal rights listed in the caci. canra mandates that various statutorily would be surprised to hear anything differently from other case of a person who is accused of child abuse, but never for- plaintiff's name on a list that prohibited her from purchasing determination is to be made. presumably, a report is "not based on an investigation from the utah police, the vic- unfounded" the ca doj has a duty to "not retain the report." injury, or not to constitute child abuse or neglect." id. the final, and perhaps most important, mathews factor is cal. penal code 11170(b)(4). the information is also pro- result of being listed in the caci, "a right or status previously canra. pattern that may lead to formal charges in future cases. the (11th cir. 2003). we think smith rests on a different footing. investigator who conducted the investigation" found the stantial risk that some of its reports are false, even if the for summary judgment on the 1983 claim arising out of the guardian or other person who is not a licensed or cer- iii. conclusion ("our recognition that the victim's vulnerability or intimate the new york central register of child abuse and maltreat- suffered a stigma-plus injury to his reputation and had been arrest. we therefore discuss the factual innocence finding, not as a matter detected and can be useful to law enforcement. but it is [1] to establish a prima facie case under 1983, the hum- 15081humphries v. county of los angeles to clear their name from this stigma, they must apply for a 15079humphries v. county of los angeles our understanding is that alabama did not require employers to con- responsible for making, and thus correcting, the determination no standard for reevaluating his initial judgment, and no one alters the humphries' legal rights or status in a variety of significantly, we expressly declined to address whether the [californians] could be included on a list . . . unless there has u.s.c. 1983. we therefore reverse the district court's grant maintain files on unsubstantiated reports of child abuse for able to the humphries, castillo's measured statement did not require the sible for a statement defaming an employee who continues to a strong interest in protecting its youngest and most vulnera- himself. since canra does not provide for formal review of 4. procedural history ing interest in protecting children from abuse. caci, what is the risk of someone being erroneously listed?" gram in san diego county, where "doj discovered that any action." cal. penal code 851.8(i). the humphries contend that 15 include gaining approval to care for children in a day care cir. 1989). therefore, detective wilson is entitled to quali- "not true"), or information about the dropped criminal charges ble means for california to secure its interest. see santosky v. contained within their caci listing. id. 11167.5(b)(11). c. risk of erroneous deprivation employment background investigations for peace officers, in the caci as substantiated child abusers, plus the various explaining why the person was suitable for employment or a consult the caci before issuing licenses, the caci ceased to banc) (addressing qualified immunity analysis although the ing its procedures, and it should have the full range of options effec- regarding whether there is a city custom or policy that caused government benefit, and those agencies will therefore be more on august 27, 2002. the humphries' first amended com- other context. these benefits "will be refused . . . simply because [their] the home. state for the performance of licensing duties . . . con- tive extended family members as foster care providers, and roth, 408 u.s. 564, 573 (1972). in paul v. davis, the dr. isaac benjamin paz surgically removed a melanoma on [14] the humphries are in a tough position. they are not clusive and substantiated reports are submitted to the ca doj stantineau, the flyer merely "came to the attention" of davis' tation, but could not establish the "plus" because he was "not humphries had been booked on felony torture, the district attorney not mean that the allegations are affirmatively false. regardless, there is classes, all potential students must pay for and submit to a law." zinermon v. burch, 494 u.s. 113, 125 (1990). our anal- employment or volunteer positions with a casa program, or the agency blindly and hope the investigator is responsive. it sult the alabama registry, and therefore that siegelman is closer to paul registry and conduct further investigation, then we respectfully disagree [11] second, the person may rely on a licensing or employ- apparently remains listed in the caci permanently. see id. mere presence of miller's name on the caci denied him due ance of justice. the felony torture charges on which the hum- the alabama registry. see valmonte, 18 f.3d at 1002 consult the caci, investigate, and use the caci information sealed and destroyed. similarly, the juvenile court dismissed however, does not allow the "finding of factual innocence" to be submit- 11170(e)(1). although these agencies are not explicitly 3. the humphries seek removal from the caci 3. seeking court review. finally, appellees argue that a determination made that a report is "unfounded." see id. it to the ca doj, if a report "subsequently proves to be and returned their children to them. they went to the prosecu- guarantees that conferral of that benefit will be delayed. clude that there is a substantial risk that california will august 29, 2001. because this case is before us on a motion for summary arises on remand, the parties are free to introduce additional evidence their names included in a child abuse database that places a united states constitution: the humphries' arrest and incar- obtain the report of suspected child abuse and information have wrongfully been included in the caci would want to be we also note that, although it does not specifically mandate the agency 712. notably, no law had required the chief of police to dis- child care, allowing people to engage in adoption or child- ment. under the new york scheme, the department of social thus, in the best case scenario for an innocent person placed by the investigator who conducted the investigation [1] to be again, the humphries' experience is instructive. the hum- opportunities "flow[ed] from the flyer in question," his injury from the [ca doj]. the [caci] check shall be con- the sale of alcohol to her, it "significantly altered her status as ler's name was listed on the caci. id. at 1174-75. the mill- the information is posted, the ca doj must notify the known tim's statement, and emergency room records describing the phries must establish that: (1) the conduct complained of was groups collectively throughout the opinion as "agencies." records on such investigations, even if the investigations do of evidence, but rather as illustrative of the legal quagmire in which the goals and activities. the humphries have indicated that they concerned that every insult by a police officer might create a ers' three grandchildren had been removed from their parents' 1178. we held that because grandparents have no constitu- detective wilson to comply with the duly-enacted canra report" of child abuse.4 under color of law are entitled to qualified immunity unless evidence to determine whether child abuse and/or neglect unconstitutional risk of bias in administrative adjudi- tion solely references the initial determination of listing some- 11170(b)(9)(a) biological mother called craig and said she wanted s.h. to 15075humphries v. county of los angeles other legal rights from the state of california are the result of obtain information from the caci are responsible for "draw- ing the appropriate licenses for working with children without their grandchildren after charles' name had been placed on gible deleterious effect that flows from a bad reputation. the prosecutor had learned that in november 2000, receive a government benefit--is the very type of liberty can take). the opportunity to be heard on the allegations we have held that "[i]n order to avoid summary judgment rized to find allegations "true" or "not proved." see cal. ct. r. 1450(f) obviously unconstitutional as to require a reasonable officer the rate of error because california has no expungement pro- does not appear to have any duty to ensure the accuracy of the rity or association as noncustodial grandparents of children county licensing agency that has contracted with the also kennedy v. louisiana, 128 s. ct. 2641, 2663 (2008) (not- 15051humphries v. county of los angeles the reverse of the presumption of innocence in our criminal caci. cal. penal code 11169(b). at that point, if the per- a. private interest meanor charge filed on april 18. the humphries contend that the district describe who must notify the ca doj of that fact, or how the procedure by which they can challenge their listing on caci impact on her ability to obtain educational credentials.9 11170(e)(2). erly before us. we also did not address whether requiring 2. adequacy of the procedural safeguards fied agencies: state contracted licensing agencies overseeing expungement--yet the second circuit found that there was a liberty interest. we proceed to consider whether they have agency--and especially agencies that deal with children--are to" the process described above. id. 11170(a)(1). the caci ing agency. gations against them." id. at 1179 n.4. the argument had not be an employee," id. at 710, is not triggered here. our deci- 1987). what california has done is not just maintain a central inves- ability of appropriate law enforcement agencies to maintain fornia law. we disagree. california penal code 851.8(i) clearly states 2. reaching an independent agency conclusion. appel- choose not to hire her due to her status" the new york open to it. we do not hold that california must necessarily for publication son is stuck in caci-limbo. thus, the process proferred by fornia officials deprived them of various rights under the the district court stated in a footnote that while the collateral estoppel unlike in california, in new york there was a detailed proce- the humphries contend that they have a liberty interest context where a law effectively requires agencies to check a safety code 1522.1(a), 1526.8(b)(2), 1596.877(b). the the criminal court, which declared them "factually innocent" forthrightly, but we cannot help but observe that such entities i. facts and proceedings on april 17, 2001, in separate, non-criminal proceedings, accordingly, we hold that the humphries have satisfied the the humphries have not presented any evidence that ans- wendy was affected in her ability to renew her teaching cre- craig arthur humphries; wendy in reaching this holding, we find the second circuit's rea- additional investigation, the individual liberty interest in ability to protect children because hearings are time- ing." we have observed that there is "[n]o doubt . . . that ways that californians who are not listed on the caci are not address their concerns or pleas in any way, he has been given prosecutor determined that this information "contradict[ed] abuse and neglect reporting act task force report at 24. posted to the caci and would have no effect on any review rantless seizure of the children, but granted appellees' motion d.c. no.official capacity as a detective cv-03-00697-jvsand/or deputy of the los angeles are explicitly conditioned on the agency checking the caci decides that the claims against a listed person are unfounded, agency has the time, funding, and resources to determine that created by the mandatory language in canra; a protected liberty interest independent conclusions regarding the quality of the evidence underlying allegations, possibly requiring the examination of investigation procedure, and two administrative hearings on we have no evidence in the record that indicates exactly two courses of interest within the psychology department, criminal behavior to an individual is generally considered 1126, 1136 (9th cir. 2000). canra itself did not create a a child abuse registry, by operation of law, creates a "statutory employment as a peace officer." id. 11170(b)(9)(a). indeed, the humphries argue that the district court erred in concluding that the the court has identified stigma on the basis of lesser accu- administrative costs that we expect our government to shoul- 11169(a). once the agency creates the report and forwards 15046 humphries v. county of los angeles the statutory framework other entities were effectively humphries were originally booked on april 16 is distinct from the misde- in obtaining many rights under california law, including (1988). furthermore, the supreme court has insisted that even listing on the caci. thus, the judicial review afforded by the "substantiated report" means "a report that is determined by for children than whether that person has abused an innocent tially investigated the allegation and reported the name for appellees fails to address the stigma of being listed on the d. balancing the humphries introduced as an exhibit a letter by peter p. castillo, grounds. id. humphries are "factually innocent," the ca doj continues to b. consequences of inclusion in the caci caci or the validity of the underlying report. to the contrary, their own investigative purposes. but when such reports find 708. the court concluded that "it was that alteration of legal license); cal. family code 8720 (providing for judicial less of a burden on the humphries' ability to obtain employ- that a listing on the caci has extinguished the humphries' custody. see also alisha m. santana, a pointer system that however, generally these burdens are precisely the sort of remanded. listing their names on the caci and making caci-related penal code 11169(b). the identified child abuser may original listing determination was suspect. id. at 1003-04. the new york statute. require a different due process or qualified immunity analysis than we out-of-state agency, for purposes of approving a prospective tions apply to reputational harm only when a plaintiff suffers itself that information that was "not unfounded" is "unfound- enforcement jurisdiction. cal. penal code 851.8(k). section 851.8(k), or work at the center. vide "some kind of hearing" by which he can challenge his appraisal of psychological tendencies and human serve as a general indication that a large percentage of the abusers, the humphries have also alleged that the caci now person only if the employer maintained a written record 11170(a)(1). once a report has been made to the ca doj ries' ill-developed claims to substantive due process based on a right of is responsible for correcting any errors. the ca doj's phries had originally been booked were also dismissed. ney. they discovered that detective wilson no longer worked the employee's unfitness before hiring him. [t]he theory of canra also provides that the caci "shall be continually phries retain custody of their children, and dismissed all submitting agencies are responsible for the accuracy, com- passing than new york's word formula--"some credible evi- records which doj presently maintains in caci should be forced to consult the caci to confer other benefits under the (2004). the task force found that "[if] this percentage held son in our analysis here as a surrogate for the investigating officer under ers effectively are barred from future employment in the child for review, and thus no danger of being overturned--it is the caci arguably can be corrected. as we have noted, once the humphries, will have to explain publicly how their names local official than is reasonable. caci is unclear. these provisions suggest, however, that the and education of children. indeed, on top of the need to pro- is, even if an agency, conducting its own investigation, variety of purposes. for example, the information in the and sealed their arrest records. none of this had any effect on b. plus ysis proceeds in two steps: "the first asks whether there exists tigator has transferred from the agency, retired, or died. constitutionality of canra is thus not dependant on the underlying a more definitive finding of the collateral effect of the juvenile court's vided a sufficient process for ensuring that persons like the register had far more procedural protections than the caci-- 2008) (citation omitted). the horror deepens when such abuse canra provides that agencies obtaining the caci 1 try on child abuse and neglect. 322 f.3d 1290, 1296-98 official capacity as los angeles thus, the issue in this appeal is whether the initial and contin- it is true, of course, that giving individuals some additional the record before us on this latter point is admittedly program licensed by the state of california. to enroll in these apparently, only the submitting agency can decide if a his own acts. where the constitutional violations were largely 8 mere maintenance of such investigatory files apart from the fornia, david s. chaney, chief assistant attorney general, a single person, charged with investigating serious allegations denied the humphries their procedural due process rights was 1001. s.h.'s shoulder. s.h. had follow-up visits with dr. paz in provisions. see baker v. racansky, 887 f.2d 183, 187 (9th we understand the minimum evidence required for canra a license, secure employment, become guardians, volunteer or se, a kind of moral leprosy. "to be false, to be inherently improbable, to involve an acci- a finding of factual innocence means that the unfounded" is to be made. canra also provides that the

All Content © 2007-2012 The Judicial View, L.L.C. All Right Reserved.
About The Judicial View ®  | Privacy Policy   |  Terms of Use   |  Contact Us  |  Advertise