Windy Payne, individually and as guardian on behalf of D.P., a minor child v. Peninsula School District

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
WINDY PAYNE, individually and as
guardian on behalf of D.P., a minor child,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
PENINSULA SCHOOL DISTRICT,
Defendant,
And
JODI COY,
Defendant - Appellant.
No. 13-35921
D.C. No. 3:05-cv-05780-RBL
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Washington
Ronald B. Leighton, District Judge, Presiding
Argued and Submitted July 10, 2015
Seattle, Washington
Before: NGUYEN and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges and ZOUHARY,** District
Judge.
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
** The Honorable Jack Zouhary, District Judge for the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of Ohio, sitting by designation.
FILED
AUG 3 2015
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2
Jodi Coy appeals the district court’s denial of summary judgment and
qualified immunity. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Reviewing de
novo, Preschooler II v. Clark Cty. Sch. Bd. Of Trs., 479 F.3d 1175, 1179 (9th Cir.
2007), we reverse. The case is remanded for further proceedings on Plaintiff’s
remaining Monell and state law claims.
Coy is entitled to qualified immunity with respect to Plaintiff’s Fourth
Amendment claim because, at the time she acted, it would not have been clear to a
reasonable official that placing D.P. in the safe room, as part of his aversive and
behavioral intervention plan, was an unconstitutional seizure. See Ashcroft v. al-
Kidd, 131 S. Ct. 2074, 2083–85 (2011); Couture v. Bd. of Educ. of Albuquerque Pub.
Sch., 535 F.3d 1243 (10th Cir. 2008); Wash. Admin. Code § 392-172-394 (2005).
Likewise, Coy is entitled to qualified immunity with respect to Plaintiff’s
Fourteenth Amendment claim because, at the time Coy acted, it would not have been
clear to a reasonable official that having D.P. assist in cleaning up after he defecated
in the safe room violated D.P.’s substantive due process rights. See Harris v.
Robinson, 273 F.3d 927, 931–32 (10th Cir. 2001).
REVERSED AND REMANDED.

-- 2 of 2 --