Defendants argue that the Fourth and Fourteenth § 1983 claims against Monge and Solis should be dismissed because neither was involved in the initial removal of the children, and both are entitled to absolute immunity from any § 1983 claims arising from their acts or omissions in following a court order. Defs. Mot. 21. Plaintiffs argue that the § 1983 claims sur? vive because a jury could infer that Monge and Solis “continued to conceal the true facts from the court during the continuing legal proceedings in an effort to retaliate and cover up the misconduct of Defendants Hernandez, Quadros and Fierro.” Pis. Resp. 24. It is undisputed that social worker Monge and her supervisor Solis only became involved in the case when it was transferred to Monge, a member of the Count (9th Cir.2013) (<HOLDING>). Plaintiffs rely on Tatum v. Moody, 768 F.3d
holding that prosecutors enjoy absolute immunity from  1983 suits for initiating a prosecution and presenting the case at trial holding that state prosecutors enjoy absolute immunity for the initiation and pursuit of a criminal prosecution holding that officials charged with the duty of executing a facially valid court order enjoy absolute immunity holding that federal executive officials in general are not privileged with absolute immunity holding that prison officials charged with executing facially valid court orders enjoy absolute immunity from  1983 liability for conduct prescribed by those orders