David Lancaster v. Tom Carey

MEMORANDUM

Defendants appeal from the district court’s denial of their motion for summary judgment based on qualified immunity in David Gene Lancaster’s 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging that prison officials retaliated against him for serving as a witness to a sexual misconduct complaint filed against a prison staff member. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We review de novo, Davis v. City of Las Vegas, 478 F.3d 1048, 1053 (9th Cir.2007), and we affirm.

The district court properly denied qualified immunity at this stage of the proceedings because, assuming that Lancaster’s version of the facts is true, defendants’ retaliation would constitute a violation of clearly established law and a reasonable official would not have believed his conduct was lawful. See Jeffers v. Gomez, 267 F.3d 895, 903, 910 (9th Cir.2001) (per curiam) (explaining that “[wjhere disputed facts exist ... we can determine whether the denial of qualified immunity was appropriate by assuming that the version of the material facts asserted by the non-moving party is correct” and stating test for qualified immunity); Pratt v. Rowland, 65 F.3d 802, 806 (9th Cir.1995) (recognizing that “the prohibition…