Keller

MEMORANDUM **

I

In this civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 , several California Department of Corrections employees interlocu-torily appeal the district court’s order denying their motion for judgment on the pleadings on the ground of qualified immunity. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . See Mitchell v. Forsyth, 472 U.S. 511, 528-30 , 105 S.Ct. 2806 , 86 L.Ed.2d 411 (1985). We affirm in part the district court’s order as to Appellant Faecher and affirm its determination regarding judicial notice. We reverse the district court’s judgment as to Appellants Battalino, Duncan, and Meyers, and remand for entry of an order granting these Appellants qualified immunity.

II

We review the district court’s denial of qualified immunity on a motion for judgment on the pleadings de novo. See Morley v. Walker, 175 F.3d 756, 759 (9th Cir. 1999). 1 In ruling on qualified immunity, we must consider whether, “[tjaken in the light most favorable to the party asserting the injury, [] the facts alleged show the officer’s conduct violated a constitutional right” that is clearly established. Saucier v. Katz, 533 U.S. 194 , 201, 121 S.Ct. 2151 , 150 L.Ed.2d 272 (2001); see also Hope…