Cunningham

Cunningham v. Gates

Good Law
45 F. Supp. 2d 783·1999 WL 222669·1999 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12901
United States District Court, Central District of CaliforniaApril 12, 1999CV96-2666 JSL, CV96-4157 JSL, CV97-1286 JSL, CV97-1836 JSL, CV97-2377 JSL, CV97-8430 JSLCalifornia2,407 words

Opinion

Opinion

Letts, J.

ORDER OF RECUSAL

After months of sober reflection, I have concluded that I should recuse myself from further proceedings in the above-captioned cases. (For convenience of reference, the eases are referred to hereafter as one case.) The timing of this action reflects the convergence of several factors. One is that the case remains stayed pending pretrial appeals, and none of the issues presently on appeal seems likely to be decided definitively by the Ninth Circuit in the near future. It appears that the parties are still in the process of briefing at least one of the issues and that no argument has yet been scheduled. The issues are sufficiently numerous and complex that there is no reason to expect a quick decision once all of the matters have been submitted.

Once the panel does render a decision, a request to have the decision reviewed in banc is likely to follow. The issues relating to how qualified immunity applies to public official defendants whose decisions whether and how to acquire relevant information, and to act or not act, occur over time—as opposed to police officer defendants whose decisions must be made in the press of immediate circumstances—is just one of the…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.