setting forth requirements for qualified immunity to apply
How later courts described this case
- setting forth requirements for qualified immunity to apply
- explaining that it is unlawful under the Eighth Amendment to be aware of and disregard the risk of violent outbreaks from placing certain inmates together, and this unlawfulness was clearly established
- setting forth requirements to show violation of Eighth Amendment duty to protect prisoners
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUL 1 2025
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
DUSTIN ROBERT MARTIN, No. 24-404
D.C. No. 2:22-cv-02083-GMN-EJY
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
MEMORANDUM*
MIGUEL FULLER-BRISBON; JAMES
BUCKLEY,
Defendants - Appellants.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Nevada
Gloria M. Navarro, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted June 18, 2025**
Before: CANBY, S.R. THOMAS, and SUNG, Circuit Judges.
Defendants-appellants appeal from the district court’s interlocutory order
denying their motion to dismiss, on the basis of qualified immunity, Dustin Robert
Martin’s 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging a failure-to-protect claim. We have
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and the collateral order doctrine. Garraway v.
Ciufo, 113 F.4th 1210, 1216 (9th Cir. 2024). We review de novo. Dunn v. Castro,
621 F.3d 1196, 1198 (9th Cir. 2010). We affirm.
The district court properly denied qualified immunity because Martin
alleged facts sufficient to show that defendants-appellants knew of and disregarded
an objective risk of serious harm to Martin, and defendants-appellants’ actions
contravened clearly established law at the time of the incident. See Labatad v.
Corr. Corp. of Am., 714 F.3d 1155, 1160 (9th Cir. 2013) (setting forth
requirements to show violation of Eighth Amendment duty to protect prisoners);
Dunn, 621 F.3d at 1199 (setting forth requirements for qualified immunity to
apply); Robinson v. Prunty, 249 F.3d 862, 867 (9th Cir. 2001) (explaining that it is
unlawful under the Eighth Amendment to be aware of and disregard the risk of
violent outbreaks from placing certain inmates together, and this unlawfulness was
clearly established).
Martin's motion (Docket Entry No. 23) for an extension of time to file the
answering brief is denied as unnecessary because the answering brief was
submitted at Docket Entry No. 20. The clerk will file the briefs submitted at
Docket Entry Nos. 20 and 24.
AFFIRMED.
2 24-404