James Adkins v. Paul Suba

MEMORANDUM

Guam police officers D.B. Anciano, Serafino Artui and Paul Suba appeal the district court’s denial of their motions to dismiss James L. Adkins’ 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 , and we affirm.

1. The district court did not err in allowing Adkins to amend his Second Amended Complaint. Leave to amend should be granted liberally, so long as the amended complaint alleges facts consistent with the challenged pleading. See Reddy v. Litton Indus., Inc., 912 F.2d 291, 296-97 (9th Cir.1990). The Third Amended Complaint does not conflict with Adkins’ earlier complaints or with other documents Adkins filed. Docket No. 42 at 3; Docket No. 83 at 12-13; Docket No. 89 at 3-4; see generally Docket Nos. 41, 42. Specifically, Adkins’ initial allegation that he saw an accident and stopped to photograph it does not necessarily contradict his later allegation that he pulled over after seeing the accident but before taking pictures.

2. The district court also correctly denied qualified immunity to Anciano and Artui. We must consider whether Adkins suffered a violation of his constitutional rights and whether those rights were clearly established…