In a procedural due process action involving an allegedly unconstitutional delay in holding a juvenile dependency hearing, district court judgment is reversed where defendants are entitled to qualified immunity, as it was objectively reasonable for defendants to have believed that their particular conduct in this case did not violate clearly established law, and that they had discharged their responsibilities with respect to plaintiffs' procedural due process rights by advancing the case to the point where a hearing could take place within the constitutionally prescribed time frame.
Appeal from the United State District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania.
Argued April 20, 2009
Decided August 14, 2009
Before SCIRICA, Chief Judge, SLOVITER and FISHER, Circuit Judges.
Opinion by SCIRICA, Chief Judge.
For Appellant: GERARD J. GEIGER, Newman, Williams, Mishkin, Corveleyn, Wolfe & Fareri.
For Appellee: PETER G. LOFTUS, The Loftus Law Firm.