Francisco Jose Rivero Pacific Internment Services, a California Corporation v. City and County of San Francisco, and Joseph Surdyka Boyd Stephens

Good Law
2002 Daily Journal DAR 14537·316 F.3d 857·2002 WL 31845935·2002 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 12205·2002 U.S. App. LEXIS 26367
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitDecember 20, 200200-17113California4,172 words

Opinion

Opinion

Fletcher, J.

In this suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 , a magistrate judge denied defendants Joseph Surdyka and Boyd Stephens’s pretrial motion for summary judgment based on qualified immunity. After trial, the jury returned a damage verdict against Surdyka and Stephens. The magistrate judge denied Surdyka and Stephens’s post-trial motion for judgment as a matter of law based on qualified immunity, but ordered a new trial based on inconsistency in the verdict. Before the second trial could take place, a district judge granted summary judgment to Surdyka and Stephens on the ground that they had not caused the injury to plaintiffs. The district judge specifically noted that he did not reach the question of qualified immunity.

In a prior appeal, plaintiffs appealed the grant of summary judgment by the district judge. Then-defendants-appellees Surdy-ka and Stephens did not cross-appeal, but argued as an alternative ground for affirming that they were entitled to qualified immunity. We reversed and remanded without reaching the qualified immunity question.

On remand, Surdyka and Stephens moved for judgment as a matter of law based on qualified immunity. The district court denied that motion,…

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.