Hart

MEMORANDUM *

Defendants appeal the order of the district court denying their motion to dismiss on the basis of qualified immunity. We have jurisdiction over interlocutory appeals of a district court’s denial of qualified immunity. Brittain v. Hansen, 451 F.3d 982, 987 (9th Cir.2006). We review the district court’s denial of a motion to dismiss de novo. Id. “A judgment on the pleadings is properly granted when, taking all the allegations in the pleadings as true, the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Owens v. Kaiser Found. Health Plan, Inc., 244 F.3d 708, 713 (9th Cir.2001).

Government officials are entitled to qualified immunity unless the facts “[t]aken in the light most favorable to the party asserting the injury ... show the officer’s conduct violated a constitutional right.” Saucier v. Katz, 533 U.S. 194 , 201, 121 S.Ct. 2151 , 150 L.Ed.2d 272 (2001). Civil litigants have a First Amendment right to be represented by counsel of choice free from unreasonable government interference with the attorney-client relationship. See, e.g., Bhd. of R.R. Trainmen v. Virginia, 377 U.S. 1, 7-8 , 84 S.Ct. 1113 , 12 L.Ed.2d 89 (1964). The states may, however, regulate…

concurring:

I concur in the judgment.