A.D. v. Markgraf, 2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 7276

Plaintiffs A.D., J.E., and Sue Casey sued Defendant Stephen Markgraf and the California Highway Patrol in the Ninth Circuit (Nos. 09-16460, 09-17635).
The court withdrew the April 6, 2011 opinion (636 F.3d 555) and held it cannot be cited as precedent.
The panel ordered supplemental briefs addressing two qualified-immunity issues tied to the jury’s Fourteenth Amendment familial-rights finding.
The court cited Ryburn v. Huff and related cases as authority guiding the issues (per curiam and others).
The briefing schedule set deadlines for supplemental briefs, possible replies, and potential reargument after briefing.
No merits decision was reached; the case remains pending further briefing and possible reargument.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
How should qualified immunity apply given the jury's Fourteenth Amendment finding?	Casey argues deference to the jury's finding affects immunity.	Markgraf contends immunity analysis should be governed by applicable framework with any deference limited.	To be determined after supplemental briefing.
Does the subjective purpose to harm unrelated to a legitimate objective affect qualified immunity?	Casey relies on Johnson v. Breeden to support a subjective-standard impact.	Markgraf contends the standard should not be expanded by subjective purpose beyond the framework.	To be determined after supplemental briefing.

Ryburn v. Huff, 132 S. Ct. 987 (2012) (per curiam; discusses deference in qualified-immunity analysis)
McKenna v. Edgell, 617 F.3d 432 (6th Cir. 2010) (discusses degree of deference in immunity rulings)
Jennings v. Jones, 499 F.3d 2 (1st Cir. 2007) (qualified-immunity framework considerations in context)
Thompson v. Mahre, 110 F.3d 716 (9th Cir. 1997) (historical development of qualified immunity standards)
Johnson v. Breeden, 280 F.3d 1308 (11th Cir. 2002) (addresses subjective purpose in Fourteenth Amendment analysis)