Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_00-cv-06139/USCOURTS-caed-1_00-cv-06139-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DONALD R. LEACH,

Plaintiff,

v.

LOWE, et. al.,

Defendants.

 /

CV F 00 6139 LJO NEW (DLB) P

ORDER DIRECTING DEFENDANT TO FILE

SUPPLEMENTAL MOTION FOR SUMMARY

JUDGMENT ON REMANDED QUALIFIED

IMMUNITY ISSUE 

Donald R. Leach (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis

in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 

On August 31, 2004, the instant action was set for trial and a telephonic trial confirmation

hearing. (Doc. 79). On September 10, 2004, Defendants filed a Notice of Appeal of the order

adopting the undersigned’s Findings and Recommendations that the Defendant’s Motion for

Summary Judgment on qualified immunity be denied. The Court vacated the Second Scheduling

Order setting the matter for trial pending the interlocutory appeal. 

On November 30, 3006, the Ninth Circuit affirmed in part, vacated in part and remanded

the case to the District Court. The Court affirmed the denial of summary judgment, but vacated

and remanded the case on the issue of qualified immunity. The Court found specifically that the

District Court’s analysis of the qualified immunity issue only “looked to the general nature of the

right and concluded that it was clearly established” and that the particularized inquiry is

Case 1:00-cv-06139-LJO-GSA Document 98 Filed 02/27/07 Page 1 of 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

2

“whether, at the time [Defendants] were investigating the potential threat to [Plaintiff],

[Defendants] violated a clearly established constitutional right by not immediately and

preemptively removing [Plaintiff] from the general prison population.” (Order of Remand at 3.) 

The Court remanded the case for a determination whether there existed any “analogous facts,

circumstances or authority for the proposition that [Defendants] should have reasonably known

under the circumstances that they were violating [Plaintiff’s] constitutional rights.” Id. 

ORDER

In light of the remand, the Court HEREBY ORDERS: 

1. Defendants SHALL submit a Supplemental Motion for Summary Judgment

addressing the qualified immunity issue set forth in the Order of Remand issued

by the Ninth Circuit on November 30, 2006, within SIXTY (60) days of the date

of service of this Order. 

2. Plaintiff’s may file an Opposition within THIRTY (30) days after the submission

of the Supplemental brief submitted by Defendants. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: February 27, 2007 /s/ Dennis L. Beck 

3b142a UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:00-cv-06139-LJO-GSA Document 98 Filed 02/27/07 Page 2 of 2