descrybe logo
You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.

Teresa Wallin, Individually and as a Taxpayer Seymour Paperno, as a Taxpayer v. City of Los Angeles, Daryl Gates, Chief David Dotson, Chief Captain Brennan Jeff Bertrand, Lieutenant in Their Official and Individual Capacities James Joy, Officer in His Individual Capacity and Does 1-50, Inclusive.

Citations: 15 F.3d 1095; 1994 U.S. App. LEXIS 6708; 1994 WL 32614Docket: 92-55954

Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit; February 2, 1994; Federal Appellate Court

Narrative Opinion Summary

The case involves a claim by an LAPD officer, Wallin, who alleges that her constitutional rights were violated by fellow LAPD officers after she reported a sexual assault by a colleague. Wallin asserts that the officers engaged in intimidation, mishandled her complaint, and subjected her to unconstitutional gender discrimination by delaying the investigation and threatening retaliation. The LAPD officers sought summary judgment based on qualified immunity, arguing compliance with legal standards and denying misconduct. The district court denied their motion, and the LAPD officers appealed. However, the appeal was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction, as the denial of qualified immunity is not typically appealable unless it involves a legal issue under the collateral order doctrine. The court found that factual disputes central to Wallin's claims precluded a jurisdictional review. The LAPD officers' defense rested on claims of non-involvement and adherence to LAPD guidelines, while Wallin provided evidence of a pattern of gender discrimination. The decision is non-precedential, reflecting limitations on citing unpublished dispositions in the Ninth Circuit.

Legal Issues Addressed

Gender Discrimination Claims under Section 1983

Application: Wallin alleges unconstitutional gender discrimination due to delayed investigation and retaliation following her sexual assault complaint, which the court found to be intertwined with factual disputes, affecting the qualified immunity appeal.

Reasoning: Wallin contends that the investigation was improperly delayed and prioritized low, which amounted to unconstitutional gender discrimination.

Non-Precedential Dispositions

Application: The court's decision is noted as non-precedential and not citable except as allowed under specific rules, reflecting the limitations on using unpublished dispositions.

Reasoning: This decision is not for publication and cannot be cited as precedent in this circuit, except as allowed by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

Qualified Immunity and Appealability

Application: The court addresses the appealability of a denial of qualified immunity, emphasizing that such denial is generally non-appealable unless it pertains to a legal issue under the collateral order doctrine.

Reasoning: The analysis reveals that the court's denial of qualified immunity is not typically appealable; however, under the collateral order doctrine, it can be if it pertains to a legal issue.

Supervisor Liability under Section 1983

Application: The court examines the liability of supervisory officials for constitutional violations committed by subordinates, requiring participation or direction of the violation for liability under Section 1983.

Reasoning: Under Section 1983, a supervisor is not personally liable for constitutional violations by subordinates unless he participated in or directed those violations.