Conner v. Heiman
2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 4996
| 9th Cir. | 2012Background
- Conner sued Heiman and Neil under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for Fourth Amendment arrest without probable cause and for conspiracy with Harrah's to violate his rights.
- The district court denied summary judgment on qualified immunity, which the defendants appeal.
- Key events: Harrah's overpaid Conner by $950; Harrah's employees Lee and Coffee flagged the overpayment and attempted to inform Conner; Conner refused to return the overpayment.
- Harrah's games manager Webbert investigated and reported to the Gaming Control Board; Heiman opened the investigation after reviewing video and statements.
- Heiman informed Conner by phone that retaining the overpayment could be theft under Nevada law; Conner demanded evidence and asked to see the video.
- On August 6, 2008, after a preliminary inquiry, Heiman and Neil arrested Conner, transported him to Harrah's to return the overpayment, and then released him; district court held material facts were disputed but allowed a jury to decide qualified immunity.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether district court erred by reserving qualified immunity for the jury | Conner argues the facts are undisputed and district court should decide the issue. | Heiman & Neil contend material facts could be disputed only inferences, so jury should decide. | Yes; court should decide immunity as a matter of law. |
| Whether there was probable cause to arrest Conner for theft | Conner contends lack of mens rea defeats probable cause. | Heiman & Neil argue totality of circumstances supported probable cause. | Probable cause could be found; qualified immunity applies. |
| Whether the Fourth Amendment right at issue was clearly established | Conner asserts the officers violated clearly established rights by arresting without probable cause. | Officers acted reasonably under settled law given the evidence. | Right was not clearly established; officers entitled to qualified immunity. |
| Whether the § 1983 conspiracy claim survives | Conner argues defendants conspired with Harrah's to prosecute him improperly. | If immunity applies, conspiracy claim fails as a matter of law. | Conspiracy claim barred by qualified immunity. |
Key Cases Cited
- Hunter v. Bryant, 502 U.S. 224 (1991) (qualified immunity and early disposition principles for protective purposes)
- Saucier v. Katz, 533 U.S. 194 (2001) (two-step approach to qualified immunity (later altered by Pearson))
- Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223 (2009) (modifies Saucier by allowing courts to address qualified immunity in the alternative)
- Peng v. Mei Chin Penghu, 335 F.3d 970 (9th Cir.2003) (limits when district court should decide qualified immunity based on undisputed facts)
- Torres v. City of Los Angeles, 548 F.3d 1197 (9th Cir.2008) (when to decide immunity depends on disputes about what officers knew)
- Beier v. City of Lewiston, 354 F.3d 1058 (9th Cir.2004) (probable cause standard in Fourth Amendment context)
- Mitchell v. Forsyth, 472 U.S. 511 (1985) (final decision on the appealability of qualified immunity rulings)
- Haldeman v. Golden, 359 Fed.Appx. 777 (9th Cir.2009) (conspiracy claims under § 1983 and immunity context)