finding that conclusory 6 allegations that supervisor promulgated unconstitutional policies and procedures which authorized 7 unconstitutional conduct of subordinates do not suffice to state a claim of supervisory liability
How later courts described this case
- finding that conclusory 6 allegations that supervisor promulgated unconstitutional policies and procedures which authorized 7 unconstitutional conduct of subordinates do not suffice to state a claim of supervisory liability
- “When a defendant raises the qualified-immunity defense, the onus is on the plaintiff to demonstrate (1) that the official violated a statutory or constitutional right, and (2) that the right was clearly established at the time of the challenged conduct.” (emphasis and internal quotation marks omitted)
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
NOONAN, Circuit Judge,
dissenting:
I concur in Judge Pregerson’s dissent and add the following:
1. The rules, as carefully constructed to govern cases involving the imposition of death, were not observed.
2. Precedent was not observed. If reasonable jurists can disagree on the merits of an issue involving death, the court should grant a stay so that the matter may be fully considered. Barefoot v. Estelle, 463 U.S. 880 , 893 n. 4, 103 S.Ct. 3383 , 3394-95 n. 4, 77 L.Ed.2d 1090 (1983).
3. Emergencies and errors of the kind that occurred in this case are created by the exigencies of state law setting a twenty-four hour period in which the death warrant is good. Cal.Penal Code § 1227 (“appointing a day upon which the judgment shall be executed”). The State of California is capable of legislative action that does not impose such draconian limits. See id. § 1227.5.
The state law should be conformed to the requirements of the United States Constitution and the review that habeas corpus provides thereunder.