Baldwin

Baldwin v. Placer County

Good Law
418 F.3d 966·2005 WL 1863322
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitAugust 8, 200504-15848California2,005 words

Opinion

Opinion

Noonan, J.

ORDER AND AMENDED OPINION

ORDER

The opinion filed on April 19, 2005 is amended as follows:

At slip op. p. 4411, at the end of the second paragraph ending “bleached out.”, add a new paragraph.

With this amendment, the panel has voted to deny the petition for rehearing. Judges Thomas and Fisher have voted to deny the petition for rehearing en banc and Judge Noonan has so recommended.

The full court has been advised of the petition for rehearing en banc, and no active judge has requested a vote whether to rehear the matter en banc. Fed. R.App. P. 35.

The petition for rehearing is DENIED and the petition for rehearing en banc is DENIED.

The panel will not entertain any new petitions for rehearing or petitions for rehearing en banc.

OPINION

Placer County and several of its police officers (collectively, the County) have taken this interlocutory appeal from the district court’s denial of their motion for qualified immunity in this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action brought by Michael Baldwin and Georgia Chacko (the plaintiffs). On the basis of the facts conceded as undisputed by the County for purposes of this appeal, we hold that the County violated established constitutional rights of…

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.