Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Save to My Library
Look up keyword
Like this
1Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
SEC Reply Hodges Apr 30

SEC Reply Hodges Apr 30

Ratings: (0)|Views: 20 |Likes:
Published by glimmertwins

More info:

Published by: glimmertwins on May 01, 2012
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

05/01/2012

pdf

text

original

 
No. 11-55169IN THEUNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALSFOR THE NINTH CIRCUITDAVID ANDERSON, et al.,))Plaintiffs-Appellants,))v.))CHRISTOPHER COX, et al.,))Defendants-Appellees.))
DEFENDANTS-APPELLEES’ ANSWERING BRIEF
APPEAL FROMTHE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTFOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIACase No. SACV 10-00031 JVS (MLGx)ANDRÉ BIROTTE JR.United States AttorneyLEON W. WEIDMANAssistant United States AttorneyChief, Civil DivisionKEITH M. STAUB [SBN: 137909]Assistant United States AttorneyFederal Building, Room 7516300 North Los Angeles StreetLos Angeles, California 90012Telephone: (213) 894-7423Facsimile: (213) 894-7819Attorneys for Defendants-Appellees
Case: 11-55169 04/30/2012 ID: 8158777 DktEntry: 24-1 Page: 1 of 35
 
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I.COUNTER-STATEMENT OF ISSUES ON APPEAL................1II.STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION...............................2III.STATEMENT OF THE CASE...................................2A.NATURE OF THE CASE.................................2B.COURSE OF PROCEEDINGS BELOW......................3C.STATEMENT OF FACTS.................................5IV.STANDARD OF REVIEW.....................................12V.SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT.............................12VI.ARGUMENT...............................................14A.THE DISTRICT COURT PROPERLY DISMISSEDAPPELLANTS’ FIFTH AMENDMENT CLAIMS FORFAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM..........................14B.OTHER DEFICIENCIES IN THE FAC ALSOWARRANT DISMISSAL................................211.Appellants
 Bivens
Claim Should Be Dismissed BecauseThey Have Not Alleged that the Commissioners WereEither Personally Involved in, or Caused Appellants toBe Subjected to, a Constitutional Deprivation............212.AppellantsAllegations Are Not Sufficiently Plausibleto State a Claim....................................223.Appellants Have Failed to Set Forth Facts Sufficient toOvercome the Commissioners’ Qualified Immunity.......24
i
Case: 11-55169 04/30/2012 ID: 8158777 DktEntry: 24-1 Page: 2 of 35
 
4.Appellants Have Abandoned Their Claim forDeclaratory Judgment...............................26VII.CONCLUSION..............................................28VIII.STATEMENT OF RELATED CASES...........................29
ii
Case: 11-55169 04/30/2012 ID: 8158777 DktEntry: 24-1 Page: 3 of 35

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->