holding that there was no clearly established “right to be free from heightened exposure to Valley Fever spores”
How later courts described this case
- holding that there was no clearly established “right to be free from heightened exposure to Valley Fever spores”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
FILED
DEC 29 2020
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ERIC BATES; et al., No. 19-17094
Plaintiffs-Appellants, D.C. No.
1:14-cv-02085-LJO-SAB
v.
ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER, MEMORANDUM*
Former Governor of the State of
California; et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
MARLON ALTAMIRANO; et al., No. 19-17099
Plaintiffs-Appellants, D.C. No.
1:15-cv-00607-LJO-SAB
v.
ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER,
Former Governor of the State of
California; et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
ANDREW ALANIZ; et al., No. 19-17103
Plaintiffs-Appellants, D.C. No.
1:15-cv-01063-LJO-SAB
v.
ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER,
Former Governor of the State of
California; et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
JOSE APARICIO; et al., No. 19-17105
Plaintiffs-Appellants, D.C. No.
1:15-cv-01369-LJO-SAB
v.
ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER,
Former Governor of the State of
California; et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
DEREK BIRGE; et al., No. 19-17106
Plaintiffs-Appellants, D.C. No.
1:15-cv-01901-LJO-SAB
v.
ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER,
Former Governor of the State of
California; et al.,
2
Defendants-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
Lawrence J. O’Neill, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted November 19, 2020**
Pasadena, California
Before: LINN,*** RAWLINSON, and HUNSAKER, Circuit Judges.
This consolidated appeal arises from civil rights complaints filed by
Appellants-Plaintiffs California state prison inmates, under 42 U.S.C. § 1983,
alleging that Appellees-Defendants state officials violated their right, under the
Eighth Amendment, to be protected from heightened exposure to Valley Fever
spores. The district court dismissed Plaintiffs’ claims based on qualified
immunity. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and review de novo
dismissal based on qualified immunity under Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure. See Hines v. Youseff, 914 F.3d 1218, 1227 (9th Cir. 2019).
Dismissal of Plaintiffs’ claims against the state official defendants was
proper because it would not have been clear to every reasonable official that
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
***
The Honorable Richard Linn, United States Circuit Judge for the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, sitting by designation.
3
Plaintiffs’ heightened exposure to Valley Fever was unlawful under the
circumstances. See id. at 1229 (holding that there was no clearly established “right
to be free from heightened exposure to Valley Fever spores”).
Plaintiffs’ argument that we may depart from our ruling in Hines is
unavailing. A “later three-judge panel considering a case that is controlled by the
rule announced in an earlier panel’s opinion has no choice but to apply the
earlier-adopted rule.” Hart v. Massanari, 266 F.3d 1155, 1171-73 (9th Cir. 2001).
Plaintiffs’ contention that the qualified immunity doctrine violates the
separation of powers doctrine or violates due process is unavailing. Circuit courts
must follow Supreme Court precedent. See Miller v. Gammie, 335 F.3d 889, 900
(9th Cir. 2003) (en banc) (explaining that “lower courts [are] bound . . . by the
holdings of higher courts’ decisions”). The Supreme Court has repeatedly,
including very recently, reaffirmed and applied the doctrine of qualified immunity.
See e.g., Taylor v. Riojas, No. 19-1261, __ S.Ct. __, 2020 WL 6385693 at *1 (Nov.
2, 2020) (per curiam); Kisela v. Hughes, 138 S. Ct. 1148, 1152 (2018) (per
curiam). Thus, we also apply the doctrine here.
AFFIRMED.
4