Skip to main content

Are you a legal professional? Visit our professional site

Search for legal issues
For help near (city, ZIP code or county)
Please enter a legal issue and/or a location

Cousins v. Lockyer, No. 07-17216

Article Placeholder Image
By FindLaw Staff on June 15, 2009 4:24 PM

In a 42 U.S.C. section 1983 action alleging that Defendant officials breached their duty to monitor whether Plaintiff's sentence was void and take steps to effectuate his release, the dismissal of the complaint is affirmed in part, where Plaintiff's federal claims were barred by prosecutorial immunity; but reversed in part, where Plaintiff's state law claims were not subject to an immunity defense.

Read the full decision in Cousins v. Lockyer, No. 07-17216.

Appeal Information:

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. Saundra B. Armstrong, District Judge, Presiding.

Argued and Submitted April 13, 2009--San Francisco, California

Filed June 15, 2009

Judges:

Before Thomas G. Nelson, Andrew J. Kleinfeld, and Milan D. Smith, Jr., Circuit Judges.

Opinion by Judge Milan D. Smith, Jr.

Counsel:

Dennis Cunningham and William Gordon Kaupp, Law Offices of Dennis Cunningham, San Francisco, California, for the plaintiff-appellant.

Wilfred T. Fong, Office of the California Attorney General, Oakland ,California, for the defendants-appellees.

Find a Lawyer

More Options