Wayne Schulte v. City of Los Angeles

MEMORANDUM

Plaintiff-Appellant Wayne Schulte appeals the district court’s grant of summary judgment to Defendants-Appellees Jaime Mejia (“Mejia”), Gerald Holtz (“Holtz”) and the City of Los Angeles (“City”) in this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action. We review de novo a district court’s grant of summary judgment. Nolan v. Heald Coll., 551 F.3d 1148, 1153 (9th Cir.2009). We have jurisdiction over the district court’s final judgment under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 , and we affirm.

In analyzing Schulte’s § 1983 claims against Mejia and Holtz, we employ the familiar analysis mandated by the Supreme Court in Saucier v. Katz, 533 U.S. 194 , 121 S.Ct. 2151 , 150 L.Ed.2d 272 (2001), namely to determine whether (a) the facts that the plaintiff has alleged make out a constitutional violation, and (b) if so, whether the constitutional right at issue was clearly established at the time of the violation. Id. at 201, 121 S.Ct. 2151 . Under Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. —, 129 S.Ct. 808 , 172 L.Ed.2d 565 (2009), we are “permitted to exercise [our] 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…