between excessive and acceptable force’ as a legal matter.” See Torres v. City of Madera, 648 F.3d 1119, 1127-28 (9th Cir.2011), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 132 S.Ct. 1032, 181 L.Ed.2d 739 (2012) (internal citations and quotations omitted). Therefore, the Defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity, a) Defendants Cruz and Blasnek are not entitled to qualified immunity as a matter of law. Defendants argue that it was not “clearly established” that Defendants Cruz and Blasnek should have intervened in the cell extractions, and therefore they are entitled to qualified immunity. (JMOL at 14-15). However, it is established law that officers have a duty to intercede when a fellow officer violates the constitutional rights of a citizen. Robins v. Meecham, 60 F.3d 1436, 1442 (9th Cir.1995) (<HOLDING>); Knapps v. City of Oakland, 647 F.Supp.2d
holding that prisoner must show prison officials were deliberately indifferent to prison conditions to establish an eighth amendment violation holding that the prison physician lacked standing to raise the prisoners rights of access to the courts holding that a prison official can violate a prisoners eighth amendment rights by failing to intervene holding that because pretrial detainees fourteenth amendment rights are comparable to prisoners eighth amendment rights the same standards apply holding that routine monitoring and recording of the calls of convicted prisoners does not violate the prisoners fourth amendment rights