Opinion ID: 2677087
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Claims Against Palmer

Text: Defendant police officer Colby Palmer adds an additional argument for dismissing the complaint against him. Palmer argues that the district court should have dismissed RosalesMartinez’s claims against him, even if timely, because the 16 ROSALES-MARTINEZ V. PALMER complaint did not allege that Palmer acted with deliberate indifference or reckless disregard.7 As Palmer argues, “[a] § 1983 plaintiff must show that police officers acted with deliberate indifference to or reckless disregard for an accused’s rights or for the truth in withholding evidence from prosecutors.” Tennison v. City and County of San Francisco, 570 F.3d 1078, 1089 (9th Cir. 2009). We reject Palmer’s argument. Rosales-Martinez’s complaint alleges that Palmer knew or should have known about Cortez’s criminal history and that Palmer “failed or refused” to disclose that history when ordered to do so by the County Court. Particularly in the context of a pro se complaint, the allegation of willful conduct is sufficient.