Plaintiff, Mandarin speaker, was not given same opportunity as two others in altercation before arrest; fact that officers had probable cause when they arrived to arrest plaintiff, but not others, provided legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for different treatment, defeating intentional discrimination claim.
Assuming plaintiff did not actively resist arrest, taking him to ground, beating him, and fracturing his wrist would violate clearly establish rights and foreclose qualified immunity.
One has the right to be free from physical force and use of taser when one is not actively resisting police.
Plaintiff sufficiently alleged subjective prong of claim under 8th Amendment for failure to protect prisoner from widespread presence of drugs at state prison, based on claim that prisoner’s risk of death from fentanyl was obvious to warden, warden’s assistant, and two inspectors, because in days immediately preceding prisoner’s death two other prisoners in unit of 12 -16 prisoners had overdosed.
Officer who pepper sprayed woman live streaming a video of police officers’ activity violated her clearly established First Amendment rights and was not entitled to qualified immunity; “arguable probable cause” was not relevant to the claim because plaintiff did not complain of a search or seizure.
First Amendment claim for retaliatory prosecution accrued when plaintiff learned that defendants had indicted him on charges that he believed to be retaliatory, thus statute of limitations began to run when plaintiff was indicted, not when he was acquitted.
Absence of knowledge of identity of corrections officer who allegedly orchestrated a drug smuggling ring at prison was not a “mistake” regarding officer’s identity, as would allow claims against officer to relate back for limitations purposes under FRCP 15(c)(1)(c)).
In a case where the Second Circuit had already held that a jury could find that prison officers violated the plaintiff’s rights, and the majority on a second appeal gives the defendants qualified immunity, see the dissent by Judge Guido Calabresi, concluding that “this ill-founded, court-made doctrine” should be abolished.
Officers got search warrant to search plaintiff’s motel room, then got oral approval from judge to search his house, but did not physically amend the warrant; search of home violated 4th Amendment, but officers awarded qualified immunity because law was unclear that warrant had to be physically amended; dissent by Judge Otake with respect to qualified immunity, on ground that particularity requirement of 4th Amendment is clear.
Claim for false arrest accrued when criminal defendant was bound over for trial; claim for unlawful seizure of property accrued at time of seizure.