586 F. App'x 685
9th Cir.2013Background
- Appellee Amjad Abudiab sued Appellant Elias Georgopoulos alleging First Amendment retaliation and Fourth Amendment malicious prosecution.
- The district court denied Georgopoulos qualified immunity on both claims and entered summary judgment for Abudiab on those issues.
- The court found disputed facts whether Georgopoulos punched Abudiab and sprayed pepper spray, supporting First Amendment retaliation liability.
- The court found disputed facts whether Georgopoulos, using city parking-officer status, lied to police to effect Abudiab’s arrest, supporting malicious prosecution liability.
- The court held the rights at issue were clearly established for both retaliation and malicious prosecution at the time of the alleged misconduct.
- On appeal, the panel affirms the denial of qualified immunity and denies sanctions motions; decision AFFIRMED.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Qualified immunity for First Amendment retaliation | Abudiab contends Georgopoulos violated First Amendment rights by punching and pepper spraying him. | Georgopoulos maintains no clearly established right was violated or that facts show a constitutional violation. | Yes; denial of immunity affirmed based on disputed facts and established right. |
| Clearly established First Amendment retaliation | Retaliation rights were clearly established at the time of the conduct. | Right not clearly established given the facts. | Yes; rights were clearly established per cited precedents. |
| Qualified immunity for Fourth Amendment malicious prosecution | Georgopoulos lied to police to have Abudiab arrested, violating Fourth Amendment rights. | No clearly established mal-prosecution right at issue or facts insufficient. | Yes; denial affirmed due to disputed facts and established right. |
| Clearly established Fourth Amendment malicious prosecution | Malicious prosecution by a government official was clearly established as a violation. | Not clearly established given context. | Yes; rights clearly established per Awabdy and Harris. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Poocha, 259 F.3d 1077 (9th Cir. 2001) (First Amendment retaliation right clearly established)
- Saranno’s Gasco, Inc. v. Morgan, 874 F.2d 1310 (9th Cir. 1989) (First Amendment retaliation standard applied)
- Awabdy v. City of Adelanto, 368 F.3d 1062 (9th Cir. 2004) (Malicious prosecution standard established)
- Harris v. Roderick, 126 F.3d 1189 (9th Cir. 1997) (Malicious prosecution rights clearly established)
- Mitchell v. Forsyth, 472 U.S. 511 (1985) (Qualified immunity not independently appealable on interlocutory basis)
- Eng v. Cooley, 552 F.3d 1062 (9th Cir. 2009) (Interlocutory appealability doctrine in qualified immunity)
- Saucier v. Katz, 533 U.S. 194 (2001) (Two-step qualified immunity framework (now narrowed))
- Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223 (2009) (Modified approach to qualified immunity discussion)