Philip W.L. Lum v. Raymond Jensen, Robert Drake, and the State of California

Good Law
876 F.2d 1385·1989 WL 56239·1989 U.S. App. LEXIS 7538
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitMay 31, 198987-2896California2,772 words

Opinion

Opinion

Choy, J.

Raymond Jensen and Robert Drake (collectively referred to as “defendants”), employees of the California Department of Justice, appeal from the district court’s denial of their claim to qualified immunity in a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 suit brought by Philip Lum. The district court denied the defendants’ motion for summary judgment, in part ruling that there were triable issues of fact as to whether the defendants had violated a clearly established constitutional right. We have jurisdiction over this interlocutory appeal under Mitchell v. Forsyth, 472 U.S. 511, 530 , 105 S.Ct. 2806, 2817-18 , 86 L.Ed.2d 411 (1985). We reverse, concluding that because there was a conflict among the other circuits and no case law in this circuit at the time of the alleged constitutional violation, the defendants could not have known they were violating a clearly established constitutional right of the plaintiff. Thus, the defendants are entitled to qualified immunity as a matter of law.

BACKGROUND

Philip Lum was employed by the California Department of Justice as a criminalist, a civil service position. Raymond Jensen was Lum’s supervisor and Robert Drake was Bureau Chief of Lum’s division. On April 24,…

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.