Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_18-cv-05109/USCOURTS-cand-3_18-cv-05109-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JAMES TASSIN,

Plaintiff,

v.

EAST BAY REGIONAL PARKS 

DISTRICT POLICE DEPARTMENT, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 18-cv-05109-EMC 

ORDER RE DEFENDANTS’ MOTION 

TO DISMISS BASED ON QUALIFIED 

IMMUNITY

Docket No. 17

Previously, the Court stated that it could not rule on Defendants’ qualified immunity 

argument based on the record before it. See Docket No. 26 (Order at 2). Pursuant to the Court’s 

order, Mr. Tassin has provided copies of photos of himself and screenshots of the suspect taken 

from the video from Officer Lillie’s bodycam. Based on this submission, the Court denies the 

motion to dismiss the § 1983 claim against Officer Lillie based on qualified immunity. 

“[O]fficers are entitled to qualified immunity under § 1983 unless 

(1) they violated a federal statutory or constitutional right, and (2) 

the unlawfulness of their conduct was ‘clearly established at the 

time.’” The second prong requires us to analyze two discrete subelements: “whether the law governing the conduct at issue was 

clearly established” and “whether the facts as alleged could support 

a reasonable belief that the conduct in question conformed to the 

established law.”

Easley v. City of Riverside, 890 F.3d 851, 856 (9th Cir. 2018). Qualified immunity is designed to 

protect officers when they make reasonable mistakes. See id. Here, Mr. Tassin alleges that it was 

clear from the photos and video that he and the suspect were different people; it is evident from 

///

///

Case 3:18-cv-05109-EMC Document 32 Filed 01/22/19 Page 1 of 2
2

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

the photographs now attached to the complaint that a reasonable jury could find Officer Lillie was 

not entitled to qualified immunity. Qualified immunity cannot be decided as a question of law on 

the current Rule 12(b)(6) motion.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 22, 2019

______________________________________

EDWARD M. CHEN

United States District Judge

Case 3:18-cv-05109-EMC Document 32 Filed 01/22/19 Page 2 of 2