Saucier v. Katz

153 Citing briefs

  1. The Estate of Robert Ethan Saylor et al v. Regal Cinemas, Inc. et al

    RESPONSE in Opposition re MOTION for Summary Judgment , 98 MOTION for Summary Judgment , 102 MOTION for Summary Judgment with correct filing attorney's name Plaintiffs' Memorandum in Opposition to Defendants' Motions for Summary Judgment

    Filed April 11, 2016

    This inquiry requires that the “‘clearly established’ right at issue” be defined “on the basis of the ‘specific context of the case,’” which must not “import[] genuinely disputed factual propositions.” Tolan, 134 S. Ct. at 1866 (quoting Saucier, 533 U.S. at 201). Here, in contravention of this rule, the Deputies import multiple disputed factual propositions into their description of this case.19 19 The Deputies also attempt to “segment” the Estate’s claims in an artificial way, addressing first the Deputies’ conduct in light of Mr. Saylor’s disability, and then the complaint’s allegations regarding the relationship between the application of forceful pressure applied to a 34 Case 1:13-cv-03089-WMN Document 106 Filed 04/11/16 Page 46 of 87 Moreover, the Deputies attempt to apply City and County of San Francisco, California, et.

  2. Botbol et al v. The City of New York et al

    MEMORANDUM OF LAW in Support re: 187 MOTION for Summary Judgment Dismissing False Arrest Claims at Church/Fulton Streets.. Document

    Filed October 3, 2011

    Therefore, in view of the fact that: (1) the law regarding group arrests at the time of the RNC was not defined with reasonable clarity; (2) neither the Supreme Court nor the Second Circuit had recognized the alleged right of members of an unlawful group to be “singled out” by police; and (3) a reasonable officer would not have understood that his conduct was unlawful given the totality of facts and circumstances (as more fully discussed above), it is respectfully submitted that Chief Monahan’s decision to arrest the group — even though he did not see the specific acts of each person in the group — was not “clearly unlawful.” Saucier, 533 U.S. at 202. Case 1:05-cv-01572-RJS-JCF Document 190 Filed 10/03/11 Page 42 of 45 B. Chief Monahan Is Entitled To Qualified Immunity Because He Had “Arguable” Probable Cause To Arrest Plaintiffs In addition to the fact that the law regarding group arrests was not clearly established, Chief Monahan15 is entitled to qualified immunity because he had “arguable” probable cause to arrest plaintiffs. Arguable probable cause exists if officers of reasonable competence could disagree on whether the probable cause test was met” Alhovsky v. Paul, 406 Fed. Appx. 535, 536 (2d Cir. 2011); Jenkins v. City ofNew York, 478 F.3d 76.

  3. Oberwetter v. Hilliard et al

    MOTION to Dismiss

    Filed August 20, 2009

    This is true even if the action resulted in damage to Plaintiff’s earbud, a shove, and a twisting of her arm. Importantly, the following considerations provide strong support for the conclusion that, once Officer Hilliard had decided to arrest Plaintiff, he was justified in taking quick and decisive action to effectuate the arrest (even if the action resulted in the harms that Plaintiff has alleged): (1) Plaintiff was part of a large group and Officer Hilliard did not know the full extent of the threat that she or her friends posed, or the type of reaction that her arrest would have on her friends, see Saucier, 533 U.S. at 208 (finding significant the fact that the officer did not know the full extent of the threat that he faced); and (2) Plaintiff had refused to obey Officer Hilliard’s orders prior to her arrest, which suggested that she might try to resist arrest, see Wasserman v. Rodacker, 557 F.3d 635, 641 (D.C. Cir. 2009) (finding that the plaintiff’s refusal to follow the officer’s order prior to his arrest suggested that the he might try to resist arrest). Moreover, a shove, the twisting of an arm, and damage to a Case 1:09-cv-00588-JDB Document 6 Filed 08/20/2009 Page 38 of 41 37 piece of property like an earbud are acts incidental to any lawful arrest; no reasonable officer would view them as a basis of future liability.

  4. Charles v. The City Of New York. et al

    MEMORANDUM in Support of motion for summary judgment and spoliation sanctions

    Filed October 8, 2014

    “The relevant, dispositive inquiry in determining whether a right is clearly established is whether it would be clear to a reasonable [governmental official] that his conduct was unlawful in the situation he confronted.” Saucier, 533 U.S. at 202. - 19 - Thus, “[u]nder the doctrine of qualified immunity, a government official performing discretionary functions is shielded from liability for civil damages if his conduct did not violate plaintiff’s clearly established rights or if it would have been objectively reasonable for the official to believe that his conduct did not violate plaintiff’s rights.”

  5. Chang et al v. United States of America et al

    MOTION for Summary Judgment and Qualified Immunity

    Filed January 5, 2015

    The “dispositive inquiry” for purposes of qualified immunity is “whether it would be clear to a reasonable officer that his conduct was unlawful in the situation he confronted.” Saucier v. Katz, 533 U.S. 194, 201-02 (2001); Pitt, 491 F.3d at 509. The D.C. Circuit has held numerous times that a police officer is entitled to qualified immunity if his actions emanate from the collective knowledge of other officers more directly involved or familiar with the facts of an arrest, and it was reasonable for the officer to rely on that collective information.

  6. Smith v. Baltimore City Police Department et al

    RESPONSE in Opposition re MOTION for Summary Judgment

    Filed October 29, 2014

    If the facts at issue are disputed, as they are here, the Court must consider whether the facts alleged, taken in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, establish a constitutional violation. Id., citing Saucier, 533 U.S. at 201; see also Meyers v. Baltimore County, Md., 713 F.3d 723, 733 (4th Cir. 2013) (“We emphasize that our analysis is based on the plaintiffs’ version of the facts as drawn primarily from the depositions of [plaintiff’s] family members, including Billy who stated that he was inside the residence and directly observed Officer Mee’s conduct. Although a jury ultimately may find that the officers’ version of the events is more credible, we are not permitted to make such credibility determinations when considering whether a police officer properly was held immune from suit under the doctrine of qualified immunity.”)

  7. S.H. et al v. District of Columbia et al

    MOTION to Dismiss

    Filed September 15, 2014

    Butera v. District of Columbia, 235 F.3d 637, 646 (D.C. Cir. 2001) (quoting Anderson v. Creighton, 483 U.S. 635, 640 (1987)).1 Claims of qualified immunity should be resolved “at the earliest possible stage in litigation.” Katz, 533 U.S. at 200-01 (quotation marks and citation omitted). When police officers obtain a warrant before executing a search, they are ordinarily entitled to rely on the issuing judge's determination that probable cause exists.

  8. Kelley et al v. Federal Bureau of Investigation et al

    MOTION to Dismiss Amended Complaint

    Filed February 28, 2014

    The Supreme Court has explained that “the right the official is alleged to have violated must have been ‘clearly established’ in a more particularized, and hence more relevant sense: The contours of the right must be sufficiently clear that a reasonable official would understand that what he is doing violates 6 As determined by the Supreme Court, these two qualified-immunity considerations may be considered in either order. See Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223, 232 (2009), overruling in part Saucier, 533 U.S. 194. 22 Case 1:13-cv-00825-ABJ Document 35 Filed 02/28/14 Page 30 of 35 that right.”

  9. MFS, Inc. v. Dilazaro et al

    MEMORANDUM.

    Filed February 16, 2011

    He would not know that his conduct “shocks the conscience” in violation of substantive due process. See Saucier, 533 U.S. 194. While MFS was dissatisfied with the conduct of Defendants, such conduct was far short of being egregious.

  10. Committee for Immigrant Rights of Sonoma County et al v. County of Sonoma et al

    MOTION to Dismiss corrected formatting

    Filed November 3, 2009

    The inquiry into whether a right was clearly established “must be undertaken in light of the specific context of the case, not as a broad general proposition.” Saucier, 533 U.S. at 201. In assessing established law, this Court will turn to Supreme Court and Ninth Circuit precedent that existed at the time of the challenged conduct.