Morales v. Fry

The question of whether a particular constitutional right is "clearly established," as part of the qualified immunity analysis, is within the province of the judge. The Ninth Circuit affirmed in part and vacated in part the district court's judgment in an action alleging that police officers used excessive force in a May Day protest. The panel held that the district court erred in submitting the "clearly established" inquiry to the jury. The panel held that the error was not harmless with respect to plaintiff's claims against Officer Fry and remanded to the district court with instructions for it to either employ a general verdict form, or submit special interrogatories to the jury regarding the disputed issues of material fact. The panel also held that the district court properly denied Officer Rees's renewed motion for judgment as a matter of law on qualified immunity where, based on the evidence presented at trial, the jury could have reasonably decided that Rees's use of the pepper spray against plaintiff was retaliatory. Finally, the district court did not abuse its discretion in awarding attorney's fees. View "Morales v. Fry" on Justia Law