537 F. App'x 721
9th Cir.2013Background
- Guam police officers Anciano, Artui, and Suba appeal the district court’s denial of their motions to dismiss Adkins’s 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action.
- The district court allowed Adkins to amend to a Third Amended Complaint, granting liberal leave to amend.
- The Third Amended Complaint alleges Adkins observed an accident, stopped, and photographed it, with timing that does not conflict with earlier claims.
- The district court denied qualified immunity to Anciano and Artui for stops/arrest without probable cause.
- The court held Adkins adequately stated Fourth and First Amendment claims; Suba’s supervisory liability claim was insufficient and was remanded for amendment.
- The court affirmed in part and reversed in part, remanding on supervisory liability against Suba.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the stop violated Fourth Amendment protections | Adkins contends no valid reason supported the stop | Anciano and Artui argue there was reasonable grounds | Adkins stated a Fourth Amendment violation; stop lacked probable cause. |
| Whether Adkins’s First Amendment rights were violated | Adkins asserts arrest without probable cause chilled protected activity (photography) | Officers claim legitimate law enforcement objective | Adkins stated a First Amendment violation; rights were clearly established. |
| Whether Suba bears supervisory liability for the arrest | Adkins claims Suba knew or should have known of unconstitutional arrest | Allegations fail to show Suba’s personal involvement or policy causation | Suba’s supervisory liability claim was insufficient; reversed and remanded for amendment. |
Key Cases Cited
- Pennsylvania v. Mimms, 434 U.S. 106 (U.S. 1977) (driver’s license tag status does not justify initial stop; context for Terry stop)
- Illinois v. Wardlow, 528 U.S. 119 (U.S. 2000) (right to ignore police when no probable cause; clearly established)
- City of Houston v. Hill, 482 U.S. 451 (U.S. 1987) (First Amendment protects criticism of police)
- Mendocino Envtl. Ctr. v. Mendocino Cnty., 192 F.3d 1283 (9th Cir. 1999) (elements for First Amendment retaliation claim)
- Skoog v. Cnty. of Clackamas, 469 F.3d 1221 (9th Cir. 2006) (but-for causation; chilling effect standard)
- Reichle v. Howards, 132 S. Ct. 2088 (S. Ct. 2012) (probable cause and arrest context for qualified immunity)