Brown

Jackson v. Brown

Good Law
134 F. Supp. 3d 1237·2015 WL 5732826·2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 136882
United States District Court, Eastern District of CaliforniaSeptember 28, 20151:13-cv-1055-LJO-SABCalifornia5,468 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Lawrenceneill, J.

*1239 CORRECTED 1 MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER RE FINDINGS & RECOMMENDATIONS (Doc. 106) RE DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS (Doc. 89)

a. The Constitutional Right at Issue.

Although it is beyond dispute that Plaintiffs have a constitutional right to safe conditions of confinement, see generally Farmer, 511 U.S. 825 , 114 S.Ct. 1970 , the level of detail to which a court must define the contours of that right in the context of analyzing qualified immunity is less clear. The parties offer various iterations of the constitutional right at issue with differing levels of specificity, and the Court can conceive of other iterations.

Ultimately, however, these varying iterations of the constitutional right at issue in this case are distinctions without any practical difference. The Court need not determine the full contours of the Eighth Amendment in the Valley Fever context, what the constitutional right at issue is in these cases, or whether Plaintiffs have pled a violation of their Eighth Amendment rights sufficiently. 2 As discussed below, under any definition of the constitutional right at issue in this case, the substantial and unsettled case law concerning Valley…

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.