Filed April 17, 2009
Finally, pursuant to Skoog, it is now clearly established in the Ninth Circuit that “a right exists to be free of police action for which retaliation is a but-for cause even if probable cause exists for that action.” Skoog, 469 F.3d at 1235. Thus, even if the officers reasonably believed that they had6/ probable cause to arrest plaintiff, disputed issues of fact as to retaliation preclude summary judgment Case3:08-cv-04015-CRB Document23 Filed04/17/09 Page16 of 20 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Defendants also have another section of their Memorandum seeking summary judgment under7/ California Civil Code § 52.
Filed January 8, 2014
Because BART did not apply the law uniformly to journalists, it cannot claim qualified immunity. See Skoog, surpa, 469 F.3d at 1235. C. Issues of Probable Cause Support the False Arrest Claim As defendants admit, Hartwig may be held liable for a false arrest claim if he failed to possess probable cause, or if he failed to act reasonably in ordering Morse’s arrest.
Filed December 23, 2013
The Ninth and Tenth Circuits disagreed. Skoog v. County of Clackamas, 469 F. 3d 1221 (9th Cir. 2006); Howards v. McLaughlin, 634 F. 3d 1131, 1147-1148 (rev'd and remanded sub nom. Reichle, supra).
Filed August 28, 2014
III. LEGAL ANALYSIS To establish a claim of retaliation in violation of the First Amendment, a plaintiff must demonstrate that the officer’s conduct “would chill a person of ordinary firmness from future First Amendment activity.” Ford v. City of Yakima, 706 F.3d 1188, 1193 (9th Cir. 2013) (quoting Skoog v. Cnty. of Clackamas, 469 F.3d 1221, 1235 (9th Cir. 2006)). In addition, the evidence must enable a plaintiff ultimately to prove that the officer’s desire to chill his speech was a but-for cause of the officer’s allegedly unlawful conduct.
Filed August 28, 2014
III. LEGAL ANALYSIS To establish a claim of retaliation in violation of the First Amendment, a plaintiff must demonstrate that the officer’s conduct “would chill a person of ordinary firmness from future First Amendment activity.” Ford v. City of Yakima, 706 F.3d 1188, 1193 (9th Cir. 2013) (quoting Skoog v. Cnty. of Clackamas, 469 F.3d 1221, 1235 (9th Cir. 2006)). In addition, the evidence 2 MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 2 C12-5289 JSC (DMR) 19263.
Filed August 28, 2014
1 Case3:12-cv-05289-JSC Document85 Filed08/28/14 Page2 of 9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 A LL E N , G LA E S S N E R , H A ZE LW O O D & W E R TH , L LP 1 8 0 M o n tg o m e ry S tr e e t, S u it e 1 2 0 0 S a n F ra n ci sc o , C a li fo rn ia 9 4 1 0 4 demonstrate that the officer’s conduct “would chill a person of ordinary firmness from future First Amendment activity.” Ford v. City of Yakima, 706 F.3d 1188, 1193 (9th Cir. 2013) (quoting Skoog v. Cnty. of Clackamas, 469 F.3d 1221, 1235 (9th Cir. 2006)). In addition, the evidence must enable a plaintiff ultimately to prove that the officer’s desire to chill his speech was a but-for cause of the officer’s allegedly unlawful conduct.
Filed August 8, 2014
......................................... 20 Outdoor Media Grp., Inc. v. City of Beaumont, 506 F.3d 895 (9th Cir. 2007) ............................................................................................ 17 Perez v. Nidek Co., Ltd., 711 F.3d 1109 (9th Cir. 2013) .......................................................................................... 13 Rahman v. Chertoff, 530 F.3d 626 (7th Cir. 2008) ............................................................................................ 31 Regan v. Wald, 468 U.S. 222 (1984) .................................................................................................... 13, 14 Reyn’s Pasta Bella, LLC v. Visa USA, Inc., 442 F.3d 741 (9th Cir. 2006) ...................................................................................... 16, 26 Roberts v. U.S. Jaycees, 468 U.S. 609 (1984) .................................................................................................... 29, 31 Skoog v. Cnty. of Clackamas, 469 F.3d 1221 (9th Cir. 2006) .......................................................................................... 31 Smith v. Goguen, 415 U.S. 566 (1974) .......................................................................................................... 20
Filed June 22, 2012
Skoog v. County of Clackamas, 469 F.3d 1221, 1232 (9th Cir. 2006). As discussed above, a complaint’s factual allegations need only “plausibly suggest an entitlement to relief.