Banks v. Mortimer

Opinion

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 GREGORY A BANKS, et al., Case No. 18-cv-07391-HSG

8 Plaintiffs, ORDER DIRECTING THE PARTIES TO SUBMIT SUPPLEMENTAL 9 v. BRIEFING

10 MICHAEL MORTIMER, et al., 11 Defendants.

12 13 On June 30, 2022, the Court held a hearing on Defendants’ Motion for Summary 14 Judgment. See Dkt. No. 89. Defendants argue that Officer Mortimer is entitled to qualified 15 immunity. See generally id. 16 A court considering a claim of qualified immunity makes a two-pronged inquiry: (1) 17 whether the plaintiff has alleged the deprivation of a constitutional right, and (2) whether such 18 right was clearly established at the time of the deprivation. See Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 19 223, 232 (2009) (citing Saucier v. Katz, 535 U.S. 194, 201 (2001)). While the second prong does 20 not “require a case directly on point, [ ] existing precedent must have placed the statutory or 21 constitutional question beyond debate.” Ashcroft v. al-Kidd, 563 U.S. 731, 741 (2011). The 22 Supreme Court has “repeatedly told courts . . . not to define clearly established law at a high level 23 of generality.” Id. at 731. And the Supreme Court has further instructed that, where “the result 24 depends very much on the facts of each case . . . officers are entitled to qualified immunity unless 25 existing precedent ‘squarely governs’ the specific facts at issue.” Nicholson v. City of Los 26 Angeles, 935 F.3d 685, 695 (9th Cir. 2019) (citing Kisela v. Hughes, 138 S. Ct. 1148, 1153 27 (2018)); see also City of Escondido v. Emmons, 139 S. Ct. 500, 504 (2019) (“[W]e have stressed 1 violated the Fourth Amendment. . . . While there does not have to be a case directly on point, 2 existing precedent must place the lawfulness of the particular [action] beyond debate.”) 3 (quotations omitted and brackets in original). In identifying the “specific facts at issue” at the 4 summary judgment stage, the Court must accept Plaintiffs’ version of the facts. See Tolan v. 5 Cotton, 572 U.S. 650, 656–57 (2014) (holding that “under either prong [of the qualified immunity 6 analysis], courts may not resolve genuine disputes of fact in favor of the party seeking summary 7 judgment” and “must view the evidence ‘in the light most favorable to the opposing party’”) 8 (citations omitted). 9 Plaintiffs are directed to submit supplemental briefing that identifies, with respect to each 10 of Plaintiffs’ claims under Section 1983 (i.e., causes of action 1-2 and 4): 11 (1) Plaintiffs’ version of the facts, with record cites to the evidence that supports Plaintiffs’ 12 version of the facts; and 13 (2) the specific case law that Plaintiffs contend “squarely governs the specific facts at 14 issue” and places the unlawfulness of the actions taken by Officer Mortimer (accepting 15 Plaintiffs’ version of the facts) beyond debate. This submission should include a 16 detailed comparison of the facts in the cited case(s) to Plaintiffs’ version of the facts 17 here. 18 Plaintiffs shall file their supplemental brief of no more than 15 pages by July 8, 2022. 19 Defendants may then file a response of up to 10 pages by July 15, 2022. In addressing whether 20 clearly established law put the unlawfulness of Officer Mortimer’s conduct beyond debate, 21 Defendants must adhere to the Tolan standard discussed above. This means that Defendants must 22 not make arguments that would require the Court to resolve genuine disputes of material fact in 23 their favor and must base their arguments on a view of the evidence assessed in the light most 24 favorable to Plaintiffs. The motion will be deemed submitted once Defendants’ submit their 25 filing. No further filings will be permitted unless otherwise ordered. 26 27 1 IT IS SO ORDERED. 2 || Dated: 7/1/2022 3 Absurd 3 Sb. HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR. 4 United States District Judge 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

© 15 16

= 17

Z 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28