Leggett v. County of Merced CA5

Filed 8/22/25 Leggett v. County of Merced CA5

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

JEREMY LEGGETT, F088283 Plaintiff and Appellant, (Super. Ct. No. 23CV-04012) v.

COUNTY OF MERCED et al., OPINION Defendants and Respondents.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Merced County. Susan J. Matcham, Judge. (Retired Judge of the Monterey Super. Ct. assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to art. VI, § 6 of the Cal. Const.) Law Offices of Vincent W. Davis & Associates and Vincent W. Davis for Plaintiff and Appellant. Forrest W. Hansen, County Counsel, Jenna M. Anderson, Chief County Counsel, and Jennifer L. Tran, Deputy County Counsel, for Defendants and Respondents. -ooOoo-

A dependency court removed appellant’s son from his home. Eventually, custody of the child was granted to the child’s biological mother, who lives in Georgia. Appellant filed a civil suit under 42 United States Code section 1983 against respondents County of Merced, one of its social workers and a social worker supervisor. The complaint alleged respondents committed various acts of misconduct, including lying, in connection with the dependency case. Respondents filed a demurrer to the civil suit, which the trial court sustained without leave to amend. We conclude appellant has failed to provide an adequate record to review the trial court’s ruling and consequently affirm the judgment. BACKGROUND On October 30, 2023, appellant filed a complaint against the County of Merced, Shelly Booker, Jennifer Peterson and several Doe defendants. The operative first amended complaint was filed on April 3, 2024 (the complaint). It asserted three causes of action for civil rights violations under 42 United States Code section 1983. The causes of action were labeled, in part, “Interference with Familial Association,” “Unreasonable Seizure,” and “Monell-related claims.”1 Allegations of the Complaint In 2022, appellant’s son Z.L. had lived his “entire life – almost 6 years” with appellant and his then-wife, C.S. Also living in the home at the time were C.S.’s daughters T.G.2 (age 14), M.M. (age 10), and M.H. (age 19).