The opinion
FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION MAR 14 2014
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
MATTHEW BECKSTRAND, No. 12-17318
Plaintiff - Appellee, D.C. No. 1:11-cv-00597-SOM-
BMK
v.
THOMAS READ; NETTIE SIMMONS, MEMORANDUM*
Defendants - Appellants,
and
DOES 1 - 10,
Defendant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Hawaii
Susan Oki Mollway, Chief District Judge, Presiding
Argued and Submitted February 19, 2014
Honolulu, Hawaii
Before: HAWKINS, McKEOWN, and BEA, Circuit Judges.
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
Defendants-Appellants Thomas Read and Nettie Simmons (“Read and
Simmons”) appeal the denial of qualified immunity on Plaintiff-Appellee Matthew
Beckstrand’s (“Beckstrand”) 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, we
have jurisdiction to review only the qualified immunity issue.1 Viewing any disputed
material facts in the light most favorable to Beckstrand and reviewing the district
court’s legal conclusions de novo, we reverse.
Beckstrand brought this Section 1983 action asserting his post-conviction
overdetention violated the Fourth and Eighth Amendments and the Due Process
Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The district court granted Read and Simmons
summary judgment on the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment claims on statute of
limitations grounds, but denied summary judgment on the Fourth Amendment claim
on qualified immunity grounds. We discuss only the Fourth Amendment claim.
The two-pronged qualified immunity inquiry asks (1) whether “the officer’s
conduct violated a constitutional right” and (2) whether “the right was clearly
established” at the time of the alleged misconduct. Alston v. Read, 663 F.3d 1094,
1098 (9th Cir. 2011) (quoting Saucier v. Katz, 533 U.S. 194, 201 (2001), overruled
in part on other grounds by Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223 (2009)). We may
1
Liberal v. Estrada, 632 F.3d 1064, 1073-74 (9th Cir. 2011) (citing Mitchell
v. Forsyth, 472 U.S. 511, 530 (1985)).
2
begin our analysis with either prong. Pearson, 555 U.S. at 236. “The plaintiff bears
the burden to show that the contours of the right were clearly established” at the time
of the alleged misconduct. Clairmont v. Sound Mental Health, 632 F.3d 1091, 1109
(9th Cir. 2011).
We begin with the second Saucier prong. Beckstrand has not cited a single case
in support of the proposition that post-conviction overdetention may violate the Fourth
Amendment. While our cases provide some support for a due process or Eighth
Amendment right against overdetention, see, e.g., Haygood v. Younger, 769 F.2d 1350
(9th Cir 1985) (en banc), they do not speak to any analogous Fourth Amendment
right. Lee v. City of Los Angeles, 250 F.3d 668, 685 (9th Cir. 2001), does mention an
arguably relevant Fourth Amendment right, but only in the context of an initial arrest
by police. The facts in Lee are thus materially distinguishable from the lengthy post-
conviction detention at issue here, meaning Lee could not have put Read and Simmons
on notice that their actions would constitute a Fourth Amendment violation.
Similarly, the case upon which the district court relied, Hill v. United States ex rel.
Wampler, 298 U.S. 460 (1936), is not sufficiently grounded in the Fourth Amendment
such that Read and Simmons would have been on notice as to the potential Fourth
Amendment violation.
3
Beckstrand has failed to show he had a clearly established Fourth Amendment
right against overdetention. Accordingly, we reverse the district court on the Fourth
Amendment claim and remand with instructions to grant summary judgment to Read
and Simmons.2
REVERSED AND REMANDED WITH INSTRUCTIONS.
2
We have jurisdiction to address only the qualified immunity issue on the
Fourth Amendment claim, and our instructions are limited to that claim. Because the
district court has not yet entered final judgment on the Eighth and Fourteenth
Amendment claims (and we do not know if Beckstrand will appeal that judgment), we
make clear our holding does not establish law of the case with respect to the Eighth
and Fourteenth Amendment claims.
4