The plaintiffs produced no evidence that the officers had any ulterior motives for using force against Gonzalez, and the district court properly granted summary judgment on this claim. See Karam v. City of Burbank, 352 F.3d 1188, 1194 (9th Cir.2003) (explaining that “speculation as to ... improper motive does not rise to the level of evidence sufficient to survive summary judgment”). III.
"A case may be deemed frivolous only when the `result is obvious or the ... arguments of error are wholly without merit.'" Karam v. City of Burbank, 352 F.3d 1188, 1195 (9th Cir.2003) (quoting McConnell v. Critchlow, 661 F.2d 116, 118 (9th Cir.1981)). A losing § 1983 claim is without merit only if it is "groundless or without foundation."
Summary judgment is also appropriate where there is no evidence to establish that a defendant was aware of the protected speech. Karam v. City of Burbank, 352 F.3d 1188, 1194 (9th Cir. 2003) (citing Karam v. Keyser v. Sacramento City Unified Sch. Dist., 265 F.3d 741, 751 (9th Cir. 2001)).
It goes without saying that an unreasonable search or seizure is an element of any § 1983 claim for violation of the right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures. See Karam v. City of Burbank, 352 F.3d 1188, 1193 (9th Cir. 2003).
Applying the Christiansburg frivolousness standard, we have held that “[a] case may be deemed frivolous only when the result is obvious or the ... arguments of error are wholly without merit.” Karam v. City of Burbank, 352 F.3d 1188, 1195 (9th Cir.2003) (internal citation and quotation marks omitted). Moreover, when there is very little case law on point and a claim raises a novel question, the claim is much less likely to be considered frivolous.
A case is “less likely to be considered frivolous when there is ‘very little case law directly apposite.'” Karam v. City of Burbank, 352 F.3d 1188, 1195 (9th Cir. 2003) (quoting In 'tl Bhd. of Teamsters v. Silver State Disposal Serv., Inc., 109 F.3d 1409, 1412 (9th Cir. 1997)). Courts have largely declined to award fees when qualified immunity had been granted.
It goes without saying that an unreasonable search or seizure is an element of any § 1983 claim for violation of the right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures. See Karam v. City of Burbank, 352 F.3d 1188, 1193 (9th Cir. 2003).
Plaintiff bears the burden of proving that defendants had knowledge of his protected speech under Keyser and Karam. See Keyser v. Sacramento City Unified Sch. Dist., 265 F.3d 741, 751 (9th Cir. 2001) (affirming summary judgment on defendant's declaration of lack of knowledge of a plaintiff's protected speech); Karam v. City of Burbank, 352 F.3d 1188, 1194 (9th Cir. 2003) (affirming summary judgment based on testimony that investigator was unaware of the plaintiff's statements or her history of criticizing the city). In Keyser, the plaintiff-school official, a member of the superintendent's cabinet, complained about the superintendent's alleged misuse of federal money to the school district's Board of Trustees, which subsequently questioned the superintendent.
The facts as presented are derived from Plaintiffs’ FAC. For purposes of our analysis, we accept the allegations as true. See Karam v. City of Burbank , 352 F.3d 1188, 1192 (9th Cir. 2003). Capp is the father of two minor children, N.C. (age 11 at the time Plaintiffs filed their FAC) and J.C. (age 9), whose legal custody he shares with their mother, Debora.
For purposes of our analysis, we accept the allegations as true. See Karam v. City of Burbank, 352 F.3d 1188, 1192 (9th Cir. 2003).Capp is the father of two minor children, N.C. (age 11 at the time Plaintiffs filed their FAC) and J.C. (age 9), whose legal custody he shares with their mother, Debora.