Skip to main content
Please enter a legal issue and/or a location
Begin typing to search, use arrow keys to navigate, use enter to select

Find a Lawyer

More Options

Cousins v. Lockyer, No. 07-17216

By FindLaw Staff on June 15, 2009 | Last updated on March 21, 2019

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


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

Opinion by Judge Milan D. Smith, Jr.


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.

You Don’t Have To Solve This on Your Own – Get a Lawyer’s Help

Meeting with a lawyer can help you understand your options and how to best protect your rights. Visit our attorney directory to find a lawyer near you who can help.

Or contact an attorney near you:
Copied to clipboard