Factual disputes precluded appeal of qualified immunity issue; question was whether suspect continued to pose threat of serious harm when he was shot; “shooting an unarmed and surrendering suspect who was not actively resisting in the moments before shooting and who posed a diminishing threat would violate clearly established law. Deadly force is warranted only when an immediate threat of serious harm to the officers is present.
Medical personnel of large, private, systematically organized, for-profit medical providers were not entitled to assert defense of qualified immunity; jail supervisors were not put on notice of a pattern of constitutional violations by two previous lawsuits.
Pretrial detainee suffered seizures as a result of discontinuance of her medications; court holds that Kingsley requires modification of the subjective prong of deliberate indifferent test; to impose liability, defendant must have acted or failed to act “intentionally to impose the alleged condition, or recklessly failed to act with reasonable care to mitigate the risk that the condition posed to the pretrial detainee even though the defendant-official knew, or should have known, that the condition posed an excessive risk to health or safety”; here jury could find a serious medical
A citizen does not have standing to challenge policies of the prosecuting authority unless she herself is prosecuted or threatened with prosecution, citing Linda R.S. v. Richard D., 410 U.S. 614 (1973); plaintiff rape victim lacked standing to sue prosecutor who conspired with assistant warden who raped plaintiff to protect assistant warden from investigation and prosecution.
It was clearly established by 1999 that police forensic examiner was required to turn over exculpatory information to prosecutor under Brady, thus examiner who failed to turn over ballistics reports could be held liable under § 1983.
Reversing summary judgment for officer, holding that jury could find that officer who restrained diabetic face down in prone position for several minutes had applied deadly force to a non-suspect civilian who was not resisting arrest and did not pose an imminent threat to any person or himself; depending upon facts to be found by jury, plaintiff’s rights could be held clearly established.
Plaintiff’s excessive force claim for dog bite was barred by Heck where plaintiff pleaded guilty to resisting arrest, which under California law requires that obstructive acts occurred while officer was engaged in the lawful exercise of his duties, and plaintiff could not separate dog bite from his actions that formed the basis of his conviction.
Officers filed an affidavit containing false and misleading material facts for the arrest of plaintiff for capital murder; fact that prosecuting attorney approved affidavit would not entitle them to qualified immunity; Messerschmidt v. Millender, 565 U.S. 535 (2012) distinguished on ground that Messerschmidt did not involve a claim of a misleading affidavit.
Where other information in affidavit provided probable cause to search, plaintiff had no claim against officer for providing false information in search warrant affidavit.
Applying 8th Amendment standards, with no discussion of Kingsley, court finds that officers’ awareness of “anger” issues and possible mental health issues did not provide actual knowledge that detainee posed a substantial risk of suicide or serious self-injury.