Toledano v. Lawler

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
• Decided: September 18, 2025
• Docket: 24-7156
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS SEP 18 2025 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

JAMES TOLEDANO Esquire, Attorney, No. 24-7156 D.C. No. Plaintiff - Appellee, 8:22-cv-01331-MWF-BFM v. MEMORANDUM* CRAIG LAWLER,

Defendant - Appellant,

and

PRISCILLA ANN MARCONI, RICHARD D. MARCONI, PAUL R. ROPER, ANTHONY J. RACKAUCKAS, Jr., COUNTY OF ORANGE,

Defendants.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California Michael W. Fitzgerald, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted September 15, 2025** Pasadena, California

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). Before: CLIFTON, IKUTA, and LEE, Circuit Judges.

James Toledano brought this action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging that he

was subjected to criminal charges based on evidence deliberately fabricated by

Craig Lawler in his capacity as a district attorney investigator. Lawler brings this

interlocutory appeal after the district court denied his motion to dismiss based on

qualified immunity.

“We review de novo a denial of a motion to dismiss based on qualified

immunity, accepting as true all well-pleaded allegations of material fact and

construing them in the light most favorable to the non-moving party.” Hyde v. City

of Willcox, 23 F.4th 863, 869 (9th Cir. 2022). We have jurisdiction under 28

U.S.C. § 1291,1 and we affirm.

Government officials are “entitled to qualified immunity under § 1983

unless (1) they violated a federal statutory or constitutional right, and (2) the

unlawfulness of their conduct was ‘clearly established at the time.’” District of

Columbia v. Wesby, 583 U.S. 48, 62–63 (2018) (quoting Reichle v. Howards, 566

U.S. 658, 664 (2012)). “To be clearly established, a right must be sufficiently clear

1 We reject Toledano’s argument that that we lack jurisdiction because Lawler contests factual allegations. While we may not consider factual issues on this interlocutory appeal, we have jurisdiction to consider the purely legal question of “whether the defendant would be entitled to qualified immunity as a matter of law, assuming all factual disputes are resolved, and all reasonable inferences are drawn, in plaintiff’s favor.” Ballou v. McElvain, 29 F.4th 413, 421 (9th Cir. 2022) (quoting Estate of Anderson v. Marsh, 985 F.3d 726, 731 (9th Cir. 2021)).

2 24-7156 that every reasonable official would have understood that what he is doing violates

that right.” Reichle, 566 U.S. at 664 (citation modified).

Toledano plausibly alleged the violation of a clearly established

constitutional right. We have long since recognized that “there is a clearly

established constitutional due process right not to be subjected to criminal charges

on the basis of false evidence that was deliberately fabricated by the government.”

Devereaux v. Abbey, 263 F.3d 1070, 1074–75 (9th Cir. 2001) (en banc). A § 1983

claim of deliberate fabrication requires showing that “(1) the defendant official

deliberately fabricated evidence and (2) the deliberate fabrication caused the

plaintiff’s deprivation of liberty.” Spencer v. Peters, 857 F.3d 789, 798 (9th Cir.

2017). Toledano’s operative complaint adequately alleged that Lawler’s

supplemental investigative report, written in 2008, deliberately fabricated evidence

that Toledano attempted to commit extortion by describing a meeting between

relevant parties that never took place and falsely asserting that Toledano made

threats against Priscilla Marconi. The complaint further alleged that this fabricated

evidence was a but-for and proximate cause of the criminal extortion charges

brought against Toledano and his subsequent conviction.2 See Spencer, 857 F.3d at

2 The conviction was reversed on grounds that the state trial court failed to properly instruct the jury about Toledano’s litigation privilege. See People v. Toledano, 249 Cal. Rptr. 3d 100, 103 (Ct. App. 2019). The district attorney’s office declined to retry the case, and the charges against Toledano were dismissed.

3 24-7156 798.

While Lawler contests whether his supplemental report did in fact contain

fabricated information, such factual disputes are not properly before us on this

limited interlocutory appeal. Accepting Toledano’s well-pleaded allegations as

true, we conclude that Lawler is not entitled to qualified immunity at this stage of

the litigation.

AFFIRMED.

4 24-7156