concluding qualified immunity proper when there was no binding precedent and when “the policy’s illegality was not so obvious that any prison official involved in enforcing it should have known he was breaking the law”
How later courts described this case
- concluding qualified immunity proper when there was no binding precedent and when “the policy’s illegality was not so obvious that any prison official involved in enforcing it should have known he was breaking the law”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUN 27 2025
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JOJO EJONGA-DEOGRACIAS, No. 24-1359
D.C. No. 2:20-cv-00320-RSM
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v. MEMORANDUM*
STEPHEN SINCLAIR, Secretary,
Department of Corrections; MICHAEL
OBENLAND, Superintendent, Monroe
Correctional Complex; WASHINGTON
DEPARTMENT OF
CORRECTIONS; ROY GONZALEZ,
Headquarters Correctional Manager,
Department of Corrections; SCOTT
RUSSELL, Assistant Secretary/Deputy
Director, Department of
Corrections; CARLA SCHETTLER,
Superintendent/Associate Superintendent,
Washington State Penitentiary; LEE
STEMLER, CS2 Grievance Coordinator,
Monroe Correctional Complex; DAVID
HEISE, Construction/Maintenance Project
Supervisor, Monroe Correctional Complex,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Washington
Ricardo S. Martinez, District Judge, Presiding
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
Submitted June 18, 2025**
Before: CANBY, S.R. THOMAS, and SUNG, Circuit Judges.
Washington state prisoner JoJo Ejonga-Deogracias appeals pro se from the
district court’s summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging a First
Amendment claim related to receiving photographs in the mail. We have
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Furnace v. Sullivan, 705
F.3d 1021, 1026 (9th Cir. 2013). We affirm.
The district court properly granted summary judgment on the basis of
qualified immunity because defendants’ conduct did not violate clearly established
constitutional rights. See Sorrels v. McKee, 290 F.3d 965, 971 (9th Cir. 2002)
(concluding qualified immunity proper when there was no binding precedent and
when “the policy’s illegality was not so obvious that any prison official involved in
enforcing it should have known he was breaking the law”).
Ejonga’s request for counsel, set forth in his opening brief, is denied.
AFFIRMED.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
2 24-1359