Frederick Bates v. City of San Jose

Good Law
359 F. App'x 771
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitNovember 20, 200908-16757California561 words

Opinion

Opinion

MEMORANDUM

Plaintiff Frederick Bates filed this § 1983 action against the City of San Jose (“the City”) and several officers of the San Jose Police Department. Bates appeals the district court’s order granting summary judgment for the defendants. We affirm.

We review the grant of a motion for summary judgment de novo. Dreiling v. America Online Inc., 578 F.3d 995, 1000 (9th Cir.2009).

The district court found that the failure to provide Bates a good cause hearing before denying him a concealed weapons permit deprived him of a property interest without due process of law in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment. We hold that Bates’s suit is properly dismissed on the basis of collateral estoppel as to the City, and qualified immunity as to the individual officers. Therefore, we need not reach this constitutional question. See Pearson v. Callahan, — U.S. -, 129 S.Ct. 808, 818 , 172 L.Ed.2d 565 (2009) (holding that courts may “exercise their sound discretion in deciding which of the two prongs of the qualified immunity analysis should be addressed first in light of the circumstances in the particular case at hand”).

The City raised its collateral estop-pel claim in its motion for…

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.