Cox

Cox v. Boxer

Good Law
44 F. App'x 184
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitAugust 8, 2002No. 00-35887; D.C. No. CV-99-00075-JLQCalifornia416 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

MEMORANDUM *

Appellees Claude Cox (“Cox”) and Linda Cox (“Linda”) brought a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action against Spokane County Administrator Francine M. Boxer (“Boxer”), Spokane County Director of Administrative Services Marshall Farnell (“Farnell”), and Spokane County (the “County”), alleging that Boxer’s and Farnell’s termination of Cox from his employment as Spokane County Safety/Loss Manager 1 resulted in a deprivation of his liberty interest in his reputation. Appellants Boxer and Farnell timely appeal the district court’s order denying their Second Motion for Summary Judgment asserting qualified immunity.

The doctrine of qualified immunity generally shields government officials “from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Headwaters Forest Defense v. County of Humboldt, 276 F.3d 1125, 1129 (9th Cir. 2002), petition for cert, filed, 70 U.S.L.W. 3758 (U.S. May 24, 2002) (No. 01-1744) (quoting Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 818 , 102 S.Ct. 2727 , 73 L.Ed.2d 396 (1982)). We must determine whether “[t]aken in the light most favorable to the…

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.