Opinion of the Court — Barrier v. City of Airway Heights

This writing

Type: Opinion of the Court
Filed: June 18, 2002
Case: Barrier v. City of Airway Heights
Case status: Decided

Source No authoring judge could be established for this writing, either from provider metadata or from the signature line of the court's published opinion. Benchlight shows the gap rather than guessing at an author.

Opening text

The first passage of the document, as extracted by the source provider.

MEMORANDUM * City officials of Airway Heights appeal the district court’s dismissal of their qualified immunity defense to three claims brought by John Barrier. We reverse. I. Equal Protection Claim In order to survive summary judgment for purposes of qualified immunity, Barrier must first demonstrate a constitutional violation on the facts alleged. Saucier v. Katz, 533 U.S. 194 , 201, 121 S.Ct. 2151 , 150 L.Ed.2d 272 (2001); Nelson v. Heiss, 271 F.3d 891, 894 (9th Cir.2001). He has not. At this stage of the qualified immunity analysis, we will often accept as true facts alleged in affidavits in the form of hearsay or other inadmissible forms. DiMartini v. Ferrin, 889 F.2d 922 (9th Cir.1989), amended on other grounds, 906 F.2d 465 (9th Cir.1990). Nonetheless, Barrier must still go beyond the pleadings in alleging such facts. Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(e); Maraziti v. First Interstate Bank, 953 F.2d 520, 524 (9th Cir.1992) (citing DiMartini for proposition that “while facts in affidavits must be accepted as true, ‘general allegations or denials in the complaint or pleadings are not sufficient to withstand summary judgment’ ”). For purposes of Barrier’s equal protection claim, the law is clearl…

Source Extract supplied by CourtListener. Benchlight does not host the document — read the authoritative text in the court's own PDF.