WENDY PAULUK V. GLENN SAVAGE, No. 14-15027 (9th Cir. 2016)
Annotate this Case
The court issued a subsequent related opinion or order on September 8, 2016.
The court issued a subsequent related opinion or order on September 8, 2016.
Download PDF
NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT FEB 29 2016 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK WENDY J. PAULUK, Psy.D, individually and as personal representative of the proposed Estate of Daniel Pauluk; JAIME L. PAULUK; CHRISSY J. PAULUK, No. 14-15027 U.S. COURT OF APPEALS D.C. No. 2:07-cv-01681-PMPVCF Plaintiffs - Appellees, MEMORANDUM* v. GLENN SAVAGE, an individual; EDWARD WOJCIK, an individual, Defendants - Appellants. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Nevada Philip M. Pro, Senior District Judge, Presiding Argued and Submitted February 11, 2016 San Francisco, California Before: NOONAN, W. FLETCHER, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges. Defendants–Appellants (“Defendants”) Glenn Savage and Edward Wojcik bring this interlocutory appeal challenging the district court’s denial of qualified * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3. immunity. We conclude that the Appellants are entitled to qualified immunity, and we therefore reverse the district court. We have jurisdiction to decide whether, assuming that the PlaintiffsAppellees’ (“Plaintiffs”) version of the facts is true, the Defendants violated a clearly established constitutional right. Behrens v Pelletier, 516 U.S. 299, 312–13 (1996); Kennedy v. City of Ridgefield, 439 F.3d 1055, 1059–60 (9th Cir. 2006). The Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity only if the facts, taken in the light most favorable to the plaintiffs, demonstrate (1) that the Appellants’ conduct violated a constitutional right, and (2) that the constitutional right was “clearly established.” Saucier v. Katz, 533 U.S. 194, 201 (2001). We have discretion to grant qualified immunity on either ground. Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223, 236 (2009). Even assuming that the Defendants violated the Constitution by transferring Pauluk to Shadow Lane in 2003 and subsequently refusing to move him out, we conclude that a constitutional violation, if any, was not “clearly established.” The facts of this case are very similar to Collins v. City of Harker Heights, 503 U.S. 115 (1992). Both Collins and this case involved constitutional allegations stemming from a state employer’s decision to send a person into a work environment polluted by a biotic danger, such as lack of oxygen (as in Collins) or -2- toxic mold (as in this case). Collins, 503 U.S. at 117. In Collins, the Supreme Court rejected the plaintiff’s claim that there was a constitutional violation under such circumstances. Id. at 130. Given the similarity between the facts of this case and Collins, it was reasonable for the Defendants to assume that their conduct did not violate the Constitution. Plaintiffs may be correct that this case may be distinguished from Collins. Here, Plaintiffs have alleged a constitutional claim under the state-created danger doctrine, rather than arguing simply that Defendants violated Pauluk’s constitutional right to a safe workplace. Collins does not necessarily foreclose Plaintiffs’ claims, given that we have previously permitted a state-created danger claim to proceed, notwithstanding the fact that the harm occurred in a workplace environment. See L.W. v. Grubbs, 974 F.2d 119, 122 (9th Cir. 1992). Nevertheless, even assuming that the state-created danger doctrine is properly construed as an “exception” to Collins such that the plaintiffs’ have alleged a valid constitutional violation, the factual circumstances of this case are simply too similar to the facts of Collins for the Defendants to have been “on notice [that] their conduct [wa]s unlawful.” Pearson, 555 U.S. at 244 (quoting Hope v. Pelzer, 536 U.S. 730, 739 (2002)). REVERSED and REMANDED. -3-
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
