PATTERSON v. MILLER (2021)

MEMORANDUM **

Lorraine Patterson appeals pro se from the district court's summary judgment in her 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging that defendant child protective services workers violated her constitutional rights in connection with state court proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Kohler v. Bed Bath & Beyond, LLC, 780 F.3d 1260, 1263 (9th Cir. 2015). We affirm.

The district court properly granted summary judgment on Patterson's due process claim because Patterson failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether the defendant child protective service workers deliberately fabricated or suppressed evidence in connection with the juvenile dependency proceedings. See Devereaux v. Abbey, 263 F.3d 1070, 1076 (9th Cir. 2001) (en banc) (describing the standard for a deliberate fabrication of evidence claim in the context of a juvenile dependency proceeding); see also Greene v. Camreta, 588 F.3d 1011, 1034-35 (9th Cir. 2009), vacated in part on other grounds, 563 U.S. 692, 131 S.Ct. 2020, 179 L.Ed.2d 1118 (2011) (judicial deception claim requires a showing that the defendant knowingly made materially false statements or omissions).

We do not consider arguments raised for the first time on appeal or matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued in the opening brief. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).

AFFIRMED.