Rachel Jernigan v. Pamela Elliott

MEMORANDUM

Pamela Elliott (Brock) and Randy McLaws (McLaws) appeal the district court’s denial of summary judgment based on qualified immunity.

We have jurisdiction to review the denial of qualified immunity by way of an interlocutory appeal. See Eng v. Cooley, 552 F.3d 1062, 1067 (9th Cir.2009).

“The threshold question in determining whether an official is entitled to qualified immunity is whether the alleged facts, taken in the light most favorable to [Jernigan] show that the conduct violated a constitutional right.” Tennison v. City & Cnty. of San Francisco, 570 F.3d 1078, 1092 (9th Cir.2009), as amended (citation and footnote reference omitted).

To succeed on her claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 , Jernigan “must show that [Brock and McLaws] acted with deliberate indifference to or reckless disregard for [her] rights or for the truth in withholding evidence from prosecutors.” Id. at 1088 . An officer who is not “subjectively aware” of the underlying facts upon which liability is predicated “cannot be said [to have] acted with deliberate indifference.” Clouthier v. Cnty. of Contra Costa, 591 F.3d 1232, 1248 (9th Cir.2010) (citations and footnote reference omitted). Even taking…