"Assessing the credibility of witnesses . . . is the exclusive province of the jury."
How later courts described this case
- "Assessing the credibility of witnesses . . . is the exclusive province of the jury."
- finding that presence of plaintiffs name in rolodex of suspected gambler could not support reasonable belief in probable cause
- individual doctors who treated the plaintiff were not liable for deliberate 6 indifference where there was insufficient evidence that they personally, as opposed to other 7 prison officials, were responsible or at fault for delays in treatment that harmed the plaintiff
- “[W]e need not decide whether the government must prove that the defendant knew he had no entitlement.”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
STAHL, Circuit Judge
(concurring).
I concur simply to state that I do not read this opinion as holding that a plaintiff is never entitled to summary judgment on the question of liability in a § 1983 action. Indeed, I believe that if plaintiff were to make a timely motion for partial summary judgment on the question of liability, and if defendants were to produce no further probative evidence supporting their entitlement to qualified immunity, then, on this record, plaintiff would be entitled to have his motion granted.