Keith K. Stevens v. Scott Rose, Esq. Kenny Moore County of Lander, and Troy Hanson

Good Law
2002 Daily Journal DAR 8752·298 F.3d 880·2002 WL 1772651·2002 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 6977·2002 U.S. App. LEXIS 15478
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitAugust 2, 200200-15840California1,985 words

Opinion

Opinion

McKEOWN, J.

We address here whether a police officer is entitled to qualified immunity, as a matter of law, for seizing an individual based on a civil dispute. The case comes to us on an interlocutory appeal after the district court determined that the officer was not entitled to summary judgment based on qualified immunity. Under the collateral action doctrine, we may take jurisdiction over interlocutory orders denying summary judgment on the basis of qualified immunity. Mitchell v. Forsyth, 472 U.S. 511, 530 , 105 S.Ct. 2806 , 86 L.Ed.2d 411 (1985). We do so here and affirm.

Background

This suit arises from the seizure of Keith Stevens by Deputy Troy Hanson and other members of the Lander County Sheriffs Office in August 1996. The circumstances that led to the seizure began with a discussion in the District Attorney’s Office. Stevens along with his wife met with Deputy District Attorney Leon Aber-asturi in order to resolve a dispute over the ownership of an automobile that Stevens believed he had purchased. Also present at the meeting with Aberasturi were Hanson and the other party claiming ownership of the vehicle. In the course of the meeting, Aberasturi told Stevens that he…

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.