Julianne Panagacos v. John Towery

Good Law
501 F. App'x 620
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitDecember 17, 201211-35527, 11-35538California793 words

Opinion

Opinion

MEMORANDUM

Defendants John Towery and Thomas Rudd appeal from the district court’s partial denial of their motions to dismiss the plaintiffs’ Third Amended Complaint (“TAC”). The district court granted defendants’ motions to dismiss all claims against them in the first eight counts of the TAC. The ninth and last count alleged claims under Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 , 91 S.Ct. 1999 , 29 L.Ed.2d 619 (1971). The district court dismissed the Bivens claims under the ninth count based on alleged violations of the Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments, but it refused to dismiss the First and Fourth Amendment claims. It rejected defendants’ arguments — made for the first time after the filing of the TAC — that plaintiffs’ First and Fourth Amendment allegations were not plausible and that defendants were entitled to qualified immunity. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 , and we affirm.

We review de novo a district court’s denial of qualified immunity on a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss. Morley v. Walker, 175 F.3d 756, 759 (9th Cir.1999). We must “assume all factual allegations are true and construe them in the light most…

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.