What is the test for a summary adjudication order to grant a police officer qualified immunity from prosecution under section 1983 of the Civil Procedure Act?

courts decide two questions. First, they ask whether the alleged facts, viewed in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, show that the officer's conduct violated a constitutional right. (Saucier v. Katz (2001) 533 U.S. 194, 200, 121 S.Ct. 2151, 150 L.Ed.2d 272.) "If no constitutional right would have been violated were the allegations established, there is no necessity for further inquiries concerning qualified immunity. On the other hand, if a violation could be made out on a favorable view of the parties' submissions, the next, sequential step is to ask whether the right was clearly established. This inquiry, it is vital to note, must be undertaken in light of the specific context of the case, not as a broad general proposition; and it too serves to advance understanding of the law and to allow officers to avoid the burden of trial if qualified immunity is applicable." (Id. at p. 201, 121 S.Ct. 2151.) "The relevant, dispositive inquiry in determining whether a right is clearly established is whether it would be clear to a reasonable officer that his conduct was unlawful in the situation he confronted." (Id. at p. 202, 121 S.Ct. 2151.) Courts are cautioned not to skip the first step: "[T]he

[132 Cal.Rptr.3d 150]

better approach to resolving cases in which the defense of qualified immunity is raised is to determine first whether the plaintiff has alleged a deprivation of a constitutional right at all. Normally, it is only then that a court should ask whether the right allegedly implicated was clearly established at the time of the events in question." (County of Sacramento v. Lewis, supra, 523 U.S. 833, 842, fn. 5, 118 S.Ct. 1708; see also Siegert v. Gilley (1991) 500 U.S. 226, 232, 111 S.Ct. 1789, 114 L.Ed.2d 277 [courts should not assume, without deciding, the preliminary issue of whether the plaintiff has asserted a violation of a constitutional right at all].)

Defendants offer three underlying points in support of the summary adjudication order. In their view, no violation of due process can be shown because (1) the falsified evidence did not lead to a conviction, (2) there was no deprivation of liberty because plaintiff was never incarcerated except briefly after his arrest; and (3) the mere fact that he was held to answer after the preliminary hearing "does not establish that the testimony about the ruse report caused his continued prosecution, in that probable cause existed independently of that testimony." In addition, defendants rely on Devereaux v. Abbey (9th Cir.2001) 263 F.3d 1070 (Devereaux ) to argue that plaintiff's section 1983 claims fail for lack of proof that Christian knew or should have known that he was innocent.