United States Ninth Circuit

In a 42 U.S.C. section 1983 action alleging violations of plaintiff's First Amendment rights by his parole officer by requiring him to attend Alcoholics Anonymous/Narcotics Anonymous meetings as a condition of his parole, summary judgment against plaintiff is reversed and remanded where defendant-parole officer was not entitled to qualified immunity because, contrary to the finding below, the law regarding the unconstitutionality of defendant's actions was clearly established at the time he supervised plaintiff's parole, and his mistake as to the law was not reasonable.

Appellate Information

• Argued 06/05/2007
• Decided 09/07/2007
• Published 09/07/2007

Judges

• Before:  DAVID R. THOMPSON, MARSHA S. BERZON, and RICHARD C. TALLMAN, Circuit Judges.

Court

• United States Ninth Circuit

Counsel

• For Appellant:
  
• Walter R. Schoettle, Walter R. Schoettle, a Law Corporation, Honolulu, HI, for plaintiff Ricky K. Inouye and Plaintiff-Appellant Zenn K. Inouye.   Mr. Schoettle presented oral argument.


• For Appellees:
  
• Carrie K.S. Okinaga and Marie Gavigan, Corporation Counsel for the City and County of Honolulu, and Moona A. Yost, Deputy Corporations Counsel, Honolulu, HI, for Defendants-Appellees Michael Kemna and the City and County of Honolulu.   Ms. Gavigan presented oral argument., Mark. J. Bennett, Attorney General of the State of Hawaii, and Kendall J. Moser, Deputy Attorney General, Honolulu, HI, for Defendant-Appellee Mark Nanamori.   Mr. Moser presented oral argument.