Jimenez
Jimenez v. California Department of Corrections
Opinion
Lead Opinion
MEMORANDUM **
We conclude that defendant Bergner is not entitled to qualified immunity for the *807 February 21, 1998 incident. Taking the facts as alleged by Jimenez, see Saucier v. Katz, 533 U.S. 194 , 201, 121 S.Ct. 2151 , 150 L.Ed.2d 272 (2001), we conclude that Bergner personally participated in conduct that violated Jimenez’s constitutional right. See Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386 , 395 n. 10, 109 S.Ct. 1865 , 104 L.Ed.2d 443 (1989); Gibson v. County of Washoe, 290 F.3d 1175, 1197 (9th Cir.2002). We further conclude that Jimenez’s right was clearly established at the time of the incident. See Lolli v. County of Orange, 351 F.3d 410, 421-22 (9th Cir.2003) (citing Felix v. McCarthy, 939 F.2d 699, 701-02 (9th Cir.1991)). A reasonable officer would have known that Bergner’s actions were unlawful.
For the reasons stated above, defendants Ortega, Gonzalez, Casillas, Gomez, and Estrella are not entitled to qualified immunity for their alleged personal participation in the March 4, 1998 incident, and defendants Duron, Hoang, and Sum are not entitled to qualified immunity for their alleged personal participation in the March 27,1998 incident.