GXM v. CONNIE

Background

Jessica Renee Hissner Mendoza, Victor Mendoza, and their child, GXM, sued the City and County of San Francisco (CCSF), social workers Ifeyinwa Nzerem and Mary Payette, Pamela Connie, a lead supervisor at CCSF’s Human Services Agency, and Jonathon Blackman, an executive director at Harbor Lights Family Shelter. The claims were based on the defendants’ alleged roles in removing GXM from his parents’ custody. CCSF moved to dismiss the amended complaint or, alternatively, to require a more definite statement.

The plaintiffs were proceeding without lawyers, so the court interpreted their allegations liberally. But the court explained that they still had to allege enough facts to make their claims plausible and to show what each government defendant personally did.

Claims Against Individual Defendants

The court ruled that the complaint did not sufficiently describe claims against Connie, Nzerem, or Payette. Connie and Nzerem were mentioned only in the caption and defendant list. The only allegation against Payette was that she dropped GXM off late at an after-school program on March 25, 2022, making him uncomfortable. The court found these allegations insufficient to give the defendants fair notice of what they allegedly did wrong or to state a plausible claim for relief. The court therefore found dismissal of the claims against the individual CCSF employees appropriate.

Claim Against CCSF

The plaintiffs also asserted a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against CCSF. A claim of this type against a local government cannot rely only on the government being responsible for its employees. It must allege that an official policy, custom, or practice was the moving force behind the constitutional violation.

The court found that the plaintiffs mainly repeated the legal elements of this claim without providing enough underlying facts. Their allegations referred to formal policies, failures to investigate allegations, failures to obtain warrants or provide procedural protections, and repeated misconduct by social workers and other city employees. The court concluded that these assertions did not adequately plead a viable claim against CCSF. Because this ground was sufficient, the court did not reach CCSF’s separate argument that a single alleged unconstitutional act was insufficient.

Disposition

The court granted CCSF’s motion to dismiss with leave to amend. It denied the alternative motion for a more definite statement as moot. The court allowed the plaintiffs another opportunity to amend and set January 5, 2026, as the deadline for filing a second amended complaint. The order did not address claims against Jonathon Blackman because the docket showed that he had not been served.