Banks v. Mortimer
- Haywood Gilliam
- 4:18-cv-07391-HSG
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 3
In Banks v. Mortimer, Judge Gilliam ordered supplemental briefing before deciding the officer’s qualified-immunity motion.
The plaintiffs must file supplemental briefing, and the defendants may respond. The order delays a decision on the defendants’ qualified-immunity motion and sets the parties’ filing requirements.
What happened
In Banks v. Mortimer, the defendants asked the court to grant summary judgment because Officer Mortimer was protected from the plaintiffs’ claims by qualified immunity.
The court explained that qualified immunity requires examining whether a constitutional right was violated and whether that right was clearly established. It ordered the plaintiffs to identify their version of the facts and specific cases supporting their position, then allowed the defendants to respond.
Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. did not decide the summary-judgment motion in this order. Instead, he set page limits and filing deadlines for the supplemental briefs, after which the motion would be submitted for decision.
The detailed version
- Banks v. Mortimer · No. 4:18-cv-07391-HSG
- Haywood Gilliam
- July 1, 2022
Background
The court held a hearing on June 30, 2022, concerning the defendants’ motion for summary judgment. The defendants argued that Officer Mortimer was entitled to qualified immunity. Qualified immunity is a legal protection that can shield an officer from liability unless the plaintiff shows both a constitutional violation and that the violated right was clearly established at the time.
At the summary-judgment stage, the court stated that it must accept the plaintiffs’ version of the facts and view the evidence in the light most favorable to them. The court also explained that, when the result depends heavily on the facts, existing precedent must squarely govern the specific facts before the court and make the alleged unlawfulness beyond debate.
Order
The court directed the plaintiffs to submit supplemental briefing for each of their claims under Section 1983 identified as causes of action 1, 2, and 4. The plaintiffs must provide record citations supporting their version of the facts and identify specific cases that they contend squarely govern those facts and establish that Officer Mortimer’s actions were unlawful. They must also compare the facts in the cited cases with their version of the facts in this case.
The plaintiffs’ supplemental brief was limited to 15 pages and due July 8, 2022. The defendants could file a response of up to 10 pages by July 15, 2022. The court instructed the defendants to evaluate the evidence in the light most favorable to the plaintiffs and not to rely on arguments requiring the court to resolve genuine factual disputes in the defendants’ favor. The motion would be considered submitted after the defendants filed their response, and no further filings were permitted unless the court ordered otherwise.
Disposition
The order directed supplemental briefing; it did not grant or deny the motion for summary judgment and did not decide whether Officer Mortimer was entitled to qualified immunity. Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. signed the order on July 1, 2022.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.