Ruth Ann Conde Cheesman v. Ellensburg School District;

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
RUTH ANN CONDE CHEESMAN,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
ELLENSBURG SCHOOL DISTRICT; et
al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
No. 20-35214
D.C. No. 1:18-cv-03218-SAB
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Washington
Stanley A. Bastian, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted March 16, 2021**
Before: GRABER, R. NELSON, and HUNSAKER, Circuit Judges.
Ruth Ann Conde Cheesman appeals pro se from the district court’s summary
judgment in her action alleging federal and state law claims. We have jurisdiction
under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Mabe v. San Bernardino Cty., Dep’t
of Pub. Soc. Servs., 237 F.3d 1101, 1106 (9th Cir. 2001). We affirm.
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
FILED
MAR 22 2021
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2 20-35214
The district court properly granted summary judgment for Ellensburg School
District because Cheesman failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to
whether any policy or custom of the school district caused her to suffer
constitutional injuries. See Monell v. Dep’t of Soc. Servs., 436 U.S. 658, 694
(1978) (municipal liability under § 1983 requires execution of policy or custom
that inflicts plaintiff’s constitutional injury).
The district court properly granted summary judgment for the individual
defendants because Cheesman failed to raise a triable dispute as to any of her
claims. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c) (setting forth evidentiary support required in
opposing a motion for summary judgment); Crowe v. County of San Diego, 608
F.3d 406, 440 (9th Cir. 2010) (a conspiracy claim requires the existence of an
agreement or meeting of the minds to violate constitutional rights); Jones v.
Williams, 297 F.3d 930, 934 (9th Cir. 2002) (liability under § 1983 requires
showing of personal participation in the alleged rights deprivation); Swank v.
Valley Christian Sch., 398 P.3d 1108, 1120 (Wash. 2017) (defining gross
negligence under Washington law); Lyons v. U.S. Bank Nat’l Ass’n, 336 P.3d
1142, 1151 (Wash. 2014) (setting forth elements of an intentional infliction of
emotional distress claim under Washington law); see also Kirkpatrick v. County of
Washoe, 843 F.3d 784, 790 (9th Cir. 2016) (in context of removal of child from
parental custody, Fourth Amendment right to be free from unreasonable,

-- 2 of 3 --

3 20-35214
warrantless seizure by government officials belongs to the child, not the parent).
We reject as unpersuasive Cheesman’s contentions that the district court
violated her Sixth Amendment rights, her right to a jury trial, and her due process
rights.
We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued
in the opening brief, or arguments raised for the first time on appeal. See Padgett
v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).
Cheesman’s request to submit supplemental exhibits, set forth in the reply
brief, is denied.
AFFIRMED.

-- 3 of 3 --