Mitchell Engineering v. City and County of San Francisco et al

Filing 336

ORDER GRANTING JMOL TO 327 DEFENDANT IRONS ON THE PROCEDURAL DUE PROCESS CLAIM (SI, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/28/2010) Modified on 9/29/2010 (ys, COURT STAFF).

Mitchell Engineering v. City and County of San Francisco et al

Doc. 336

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 United United States District Court For the Northern District of California 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MITCHELL ENGINEERING, Plaintiff, v. CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO, Defendant. /

No. C 08-04022 SI ORDER GRANTING JMOL TO DEFENDANT IRONS ON THE PROCEDURAL DUE PROCESS CLAIM

In defendants' Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law, defendant Irons renews his argument that he is entitled to qualified immunity on plaintiff's procedural due process claim. The defense of qualified immunity protects "government officials . . . from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known." Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 818 (1982). The Court must evaluate whether, given the "specific context of the case," it would have been clear to a reasonable PUC employee that his conduct was unlawful. Saucier v. Katz, 533 U.S. 194, 201­02 (2001). The Court finds that the specific contours of plaintiff's liberty interest were not clear at the time the Central Pump contract was terminated, and therefore finds that defendant Irons is entitled to qualified immunity on plaintiff's procedural due process claim. The Court GRANTS defendant Irons judgment as a matter of law on that claim. The Court reserves judgment on the remainder of defendants' motion. (Document 327.)

IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: September 28, 2010 SUSAN ILLSTON United States District Judge

Dockets.Justia.com