Introducing statement made without Miranda warnings at criminal proceeding violates 5th Amendment and is actionable under § 1983; trial court erred in instructing jury on factors that would constitute a “coerced confession,” rather than instructing on failure to give Miranda warning.
Court finds probable cause for prosecution without relying on presumption of probable cause based on grand jury indictment; in dictum, however, court notes plaintiff’s claim that presumption should have been overcome by evidence that prosecution failed to disclose exculpatory evidence to grand jury; court, in dictum, distinguishes between failure to disclose exculpatory evidence and presenting false evidence, suggesting that only the latter would overcome presumption, stating that Constitution does not require prosecutors to present any exculpatory evidence to grand jury.
Affirming summary judgment in favor of trooper who collided with and killed innocent motorists; trooper’s subjective belief that he was responding to emergency triggered the intent-to-harm standard; court applies standard to all high speed driving by police although officer was not responding to an emergency call or in actual pursuit of another vehicle; court declines to determine whether emergency existed based on objective review of facts; court declines to examine facts to determine whether officer had actual opportunity to deliberate before and during high speed driving.
Applying 8th Amendment standards to claim of failure to provide medical attention to pretrial detainee; three guards who were aware of risk of serious harm and chose to disregard that risk would be liable for failing to provide treatment for plaintiff’s priapism (a result of taking a pill from another prisoner) for three days, which led to a need for surgery and probably impotence for life; qualified immunity denied.
Applying objective standard for failure to provide medical attention to pretrial detainee, under Kingsley and Gordon v. Co. of Orange, 888 F.3d 1118 (9th Cir. 2018), to review of incident and summary judgment motion decided prior to Gordon.
Granting qualified immunity to prison supervisor for sexual abuse of prisoner by three guards; court holds there is no “special rule” for supervisory liability, plaintiff must plead and prove that “each Government-official defendant, through the official’s own individual actions, has violated the Constitution,” citing Iqbal; that means the claim against the supervisor must satisfy the elements of the constitutional claim; supervisor here entitled to qualified immunity because record did not establish that supervisor had required subjective knowledge that plaintiff was at a substant
Prosecutor not entitled to absolute immunity where actions occurred before probable cause hearing or arrest warrant was sought and were completely divorced from judicial phase of criminal process; prosecutor could be held liable for threatening to charge suspect with murders although prosecutor had reason to believe suspect was not involved, promising suspect immunity for testifying against plaintiff at trial, notwithstanding fact suspect said that plaintiff was not involved, assisting in interrogation of suspect, and conspiring with detective to intimidate and coerce suspect into falsely i