Bear River Band of Rohnerville Rancheria v. California Department of Social…

Background

Bear River Band of Rohnerville Rancheria Tribe and Madison Fisher sued the California Department of Social Services, its Director Kim Johnson, the Humboldt County Department of Health and Human Services, and its Director Connie Beck. The case concerns California’s extended foster care program for nonminor dependents—youth ages 18 to 21 who remain in foster care.

The plaintiffs alleged that defendants conducted improper income and resource reassessments for Native youth who continued in foster care after turning 18. They alleged that officials treated tribal financial distributions as disqualifying resources and that Humboldt County discouraged Native youth from applying for extended foster care. They further alleged that Fisher was initially approved for benefits but later lost eligibility because of tribal distributions, without a hearing or other proceeding.

The amended complaint asserted claims under California Government Code section 11135, the Fourteenth Amendment through 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and the California Administrative Procedure Act. The plaintiffs also sought declaratory relief and a writ of mandate.

Judicial Notice

The court granted defendants’ requests for judicial notice of three official California guidance letters: All County Letters 11-10, 13-91, and 22-16. The court found that the documents were official government materials whose accuracy could not reasonably be questioned and that they were extensively discussed in the complaint. The ruling did not make every factual assertion within those documents true for purposes of the case.

Standing and Requested Relief

The defendants argued that the Tribe lacked standing—the constitutional requirement that a plaintiff show a legally sufficient injury—to pursue the case. The court denied the motions to dismiss the Tribe for lack of standing to pursue damages because Fisher’s standing to seek damages was sufficient at this stage, and defendants did not challenge her standing for that relief.

The court granted the motions to the extent they challenged the plaintiffs’ standing to seek injunctive relief. The amended complaint did not include enough specific facts showing continuing present harm or a realistic likelihood that Fisher or other Native nonminor dependents would again face the alleged conduct. The court also granted the County defendants’ motion to dismiss the request for a writ of mandate because that request was functionally equivalent to seeking an injunction.

The court allowed leave to amend so the plaintiffs could add specific allegations about whether the alleged practices were continuing.

Mootness

The State defendants argued that the case was moot because the 2022 guidance letter clarified that no new eligibility reassessment was required when a youth continued in foster care after turning 18. The court denied the State defendants’ motion to dismiss on that ground. On the limited record, the plaintiffs’ allegations that the later guidance only partly corrected the earlier guidance were sufficient to show a live dispute, although further factual development could establish that the later guidance fully remedied the alleged harm.

Claims Against the Directors

The court denied the motions to dismiss Kim Johnson and Connie Beck. Although the allegations concerning their personal involvement were thin, the plaintiffs alleged that each Director was responsible for enforcing, operating, and executing the laws and policies connected to the alleged constitutional violations. The court stated that the plaintiffs would need to provide more to ultimately establish liability, but defendants demanded too much detail at the pleading stage.

Section 11135 Claim

Because the plaintiffs lacked standing to seek injunctive relief, the court granted defendants’ motions to dismiss the plaintiffs’ section 11135 claim for injunctive relief. The court did not decide additional arguments about the claim’s viability. It also declined to consider a State argument about the statute’s scope because the argument was raised for the first time in reply. The court advised the plaintiffs to consider that argument if they file an amended complaint.

Due-Process Claim Under Section 1983

The court denied defendants’ motions to dismiss the plaintiffs’ claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, which provides a federal cause of action for certain constitutional violations by government officials. The court held that the plaintiffs had adequately pleaded, at this stage, a protected property interest, a deprivation by the government, and a lack of process.

The allegations that Fisher moved into county-managed housing after being approved for benefits plausibly suggested that she was an identified beneficiary of Title IV-E foster care benefits. The allegation that her benefits were unilaterally revoked without a hearing or other proceeding also adequately pleaded a lack of process. The court further found that the plaintiffs had alleged enough to keep the State defendants in the case, based on their allegation that State guidance contributed to the constitutional deprivations.

California Administrative Procedure Act Claim

The court denied the State defendants’ motion to dismiss the California Administrative Procedure Act claim. The State argued that All County Letter 13-91 was exempt from formal notice-and-comment requirements because it reflected the only legally permissible interpretation of the governing law. The court deferred final resolution of that issue until the record developed, but stated that the guidance appeared to be a generally applicable rule rather than a purely ministerial restatement of statutory language.

Declaratory Relief

The court denied the County defendants’ motion to dismiss the request for declaratory relief. Although the court found the allegations too weak to support injunctive relief, it found them sufficient at the pleading stage to allege an actual controversy about the County’s administration of extended foster care.

Motion to Strike and Disposition

The court denied the County defendants’ motion to strike one paragraph of the amended complaint. The court found the plaintiffs’ explanation of that paragraph reasonable and concluded that leaving it in the complaint would not prejudice the County or affect the case’s ultimate resolution.

Overall, the court granted in part and denied in part defendants’ motions to dismiss and granted defendants’ requests for judicial notice. The court ordered that any amended complaint be filed within 21 days and set a telephonic case-management conference for April 30, 2024.