United States District Court, D. Arizona
G. Campbell Senior United States District Judge
Jackie Chagolla alleges constitutional violations surrounding
the removal of her minor children, B.C. and P.C. See
Doc. 1-1 at 2. Defendants separately move for summary
judgment. Docs. 104, 111. The motions are fully briefed, and
oral argument has not been requested. Docs. 115-118. The
Court will grant both motions.
moved for summary judgment in April and May of this year.
Docs. 104, 111. Although Plaintiff has responded, she did not
comply with Local Rule of Civil Procedure 56.1. Despite being
warned to do so, Plaintiff has not filed a separate statement
of facts with numbered paragraphs corresponding to
Defendants' separate statement of facts. See
Doc. 108 at 2. The Court informed Plaintiff of her burden:
[Y]ou must set out specific facts in declarations,
depositions, answers to interrogatories, or authenticated
documents, as provided in Rule 56(e) of the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure, that contradict the facts set forth in the
declarations and documents filed by Defendant(s), and show
that there is a genuine issue of material fact for trial. If
you do not submit your own evidence in opposition, summary
judgment, if appropriate, may be entered against you. If
summary judgment is granted, your case will be dismissed and
there will be no trial.
Id. Despite reiterating many of the arguments
originally made in her complaint, Plaintiff provides no
declarations, depositions, answers to interrogatories, or
authenticated documents as allowed by Rule 56(e).
See Docs. 115, 117. Nevertheless, the Court will
consider the arguments Plaintiff has provided and will
address the motions on the merits. The following facts state
the parties' respective positions.
2, 2015, Tempe Police officers made contact with
Plaintiff's minor daughters, B.C. and P.C. Doc. 104 at
1-2. B.C. and P.C. informed the officers that their father,
Robert Chagolla, regularly abused them and that Plaintiff had
ignored the abuse. Id. at 2. In response, the Tempe
Police Department (“Tempe PD”) contacted the
Arizona Department of Child Safety (“DCS”).
Id. On July 6, 2015, DCS case worker Jessica Solis
interviewed Plaintiff, B.C., P.C., and Robert Chagolla.
Id. On that same day, the Tempe PD opened an
investigation into allegations of the physical and sexual
abuse of B.C. and P.C. by Robert Chagolla. Doc. 104 at 2.
Following the interviews, Solis determined that B.C. and P.C.
needed to be removed from the Chagolla home during the
investigation into the alleged abuse. Docs. 104 at 2, 111 at
than having B.C. and P.C. live in a group home during the
investigation, Plaintiff asked Liz Vullo, a family friend, if
they could live with her. Doc. 111 at 2. Vullo agreed and
thereafter maintained custody of B.C. and P.C. for six
months. Id. Vullo spoke with a detective from the
Tempe PD and later with a representative from La Frontera, a
mental health service, about B.C. and P.C. Id. at 3.
Vullo claims that “she spoke truthfully” to the
representative from La Frontera, which Plaintiff disputes.
See Docs. 111 at 3, 117 at 1-2. Vullo also maintains
- and Plaintiff disputes - that she never received any mail
addressed to Plaintiff and that she did not publicly disclose
any information about Plaintiff. Docs. 111 at 3, 117 at 2-3.
now asserts constitutional claims against three state
defendants and Vullo. See Doc. 71.
Summary Judgment Standard.
seeking summary judgment “bears the initial
responsibility of informing the district court of the basis
for its motion, and identifying those portions of [the
record] which it believes demonstrate the absence of a
genuine issue of material fact.” Celotex Corp. v.
Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323 (1986). Summary judgment is
appropriate if the evidence, viewed in the light most
favorable to the nonmoving party, shows “that there is
no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is
entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed.R.Civ.P.
56(a). Rule 56 further provides:
If a party fails to . . . properly address another
party's assertion of fact as required by Rule 56(c), the
court may . . . consider the fact undisputed for purposes of
the motion [or] grant summary judgment if the motion and
supporting materials - including the facts considered
undisputed - show that the movant is entitled to it[.]
Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(e)(3). Thus, a party opposing summary
judgment “may not rest upon the mere allegations or
denials of [the party's] pleadings, but . . . must set
forth specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue
for trial.” Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v.
Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 586 n.11
(1986) (emphasis added); see LRCiv 56.1(b)
the party opposing summary judgment to present evidence that
establishes a genuine issue of material fact or otherwise