Case law

Micah Jessop v. City of Fresno

936 F.3d 937 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Sep 4, 2019

Assuming that to be true, however, the City Officers are entitled to qualified immunity because that right was not clearly established. … As the panel opinion acknowledges, the lack of clearly established law at the time of the incident compels the conclusion that the City Officers are entitled to qualified immunity.

Kenneth L. Erickson v. United States of America Bryon Simon Douglas Hebert Kenneth Ingleby Charles Hill

976 F.2d 1299 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Oct 7, 1992

In addition, the individually named defendants would be qualifiedly immune as there was no clearly established constitutional principle prohibiting the acts alleged by the plaintiff.” … We have divided the qualified immunity analysis into three inquiries: (1) the identification of the specific right allegedly violated; (2) the determination of whether that right was so “clearly established” as to alert a

66 Fair empl.prac.cas. (Bna) 290, 65 Empl. Prac. Dec. P 43,347 Susan A. Bator v. State of Hawaii, and Carolyn M. Kainuma, in Her Individual Capacity Warren T. Asaeda, in His Individual Capacity

39 F.3d 1021 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Nov 8, 1994

right to be free of harassment that is motivated by gender. 28 Qualified immunity protects state officials from section 1983 liability if their conduct does not violate "clearly established statutory or constitutional rights … The defendants argue, however, that they are entitled to qualified immunity because the constitutional right to be free of sexual harassment was not clearly established during the period of Bator's employment.

Rogers v. County of San Joaquin

487 F.3d 1288 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · May 29, 2007

Reasonable Official: 30 In order to assess Royal's claim of qualified immunity, we must conduct a two-part analysis: "1) Was the law governing the official's conduct clearly established? … medical neglect was not clearly established.

Backlund v. Barnhart

778 F.2d 1386 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Dec 17, 1985

that those rights were clearly established at the time of the conduct at issue. 23 See also Harlow v. … Davis extended the rule of qualified immunity to state officials. 104 S.Ct. at 3020 n. 12.

Lloyd Dela Cruz v. Kauai County Melvin K. Soong, Prosecuting Attorney for the County of Kauai

279 F.3d 1064 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Feb 6, 2002

The next step in evaluating the claim of qualified immunity, however, is to determine whether this right was “clearly established.” Saucier, 121 S.Ct. at 2156. … Under this standard, Soong is entitled to qualified immunity. Déla Cruz has not met his burden of proving that the right allegedly violated here was “clearly established” at the time of the alleged violation.

Shane Horton v. City of Santa Maria

915 F.3d 592 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Feb 1, 2019

CITY OF SANTA MARIA to qualified immunity so that “[g]oing forward, . . . the law is clearly established in this scenario”). … We therefore confine our inquiry to the second qualified immunity prong — whether the constitutional right at issue was “clearly established” at the time of the alleged violation. B.

Hershel Rosenbaum v. Washoe County

663 F.3d 1071 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Nov 30, 2011

, whether that right was clearly established at the time of the event. … WASHOE COUNTY qualified immunity where “every reasonable official” would have understood that he was violating a clearly established right (emphasis added) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted)).2 In this case

Ashker v. Schwarzenegger

339 F. App'x 751 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jul 30, 2009

McGrath is therefore entitled to qualified immunity. See Brosseau v. … Haugen, 543 U.S. 194, 198 , 125 S.Ct. 596 , 160 L.Ed.2d 583 (2004) (holding officer entitled to immunity “[i]f the law at the time did not clearly establish that the officer’s conduct would violate the Constitution”).

Hydrick v. Hunter

466 F.3d 676 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jun 1, 2006

To defeat qualified immunity, “the right allegedly violated must be defined at the appropriate level of specificity before a court can determine if it was clearly established.” Wilson v. … Thus, there are two bodies of law from which we might draw “clearly established” law for qualified immunity purposes: first, where the SVPs claim a violation of a right that is clearly established even in the prison context

Ashker v. Schwarzenegger

339 F. App'x 751 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jul 30, 2009

McGrath is therefore entitled to qualified immunity. See Brosseau v. … Haugen, 543 U.S. 194, 198 , 125 S.Ct. 596 , 160 L.Ed.2d 583 (2004) (holding officer entitled to immunity “[i]f the law at the time did not clearly establish that the officer’s conduct would violate the Constitution”).

C. B. v. City of Sonora

769 F.3d 1005 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Oct 15, 2014

Next we turn to Chief McIntosh’s and Officer Prock’s qualified immunity arguments. We review de novo a district court’s qualified immunity order denying judgment as a matter of law. La-Londe v. … To determine whether an individual officer is entitled to qualified immunity, we ask (1) whether the official violated a constitutional right and (2) whether the constitutional right was clearly established. Pearson v.

Branch v. Tunnell

937 F.2d 1382 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jun 27, 1991

Tunnell is false and unsubstantiated. 8 On October 3, 1988, Tunnell moved to dismiss Branch's suit on grounds of qualified immunity, arguing that under the objective qualified immunity standard established by the Supreme … C 23 Under this heightened pleading standard, we conclude that Branch's complaint fails adequately to allege a violation of clearly established rights under Franks.

Mccarthy v. Mayo

827 F.2d 1310 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Oct 30, 1987

But a governmental official has immunity for discretionary acts so long as those acts do not violate a clearly established constitutional right. Harlow v. … Forsyth, 472 U.S. 511 , 105 S.Ct. 2806 , 86 L.Ed.2d 411 (1985) (qualified immunity available where the right violated was not clearly established at the time the act took place). 18 McCarthy alleges that the defendants' conspiracy

Sylvester v. Sacramento County Sheriff

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Dec 19, 2025

Rowlands, 606 F.3d 646, 650 (9th Cir. 2010) (defendant is entitled to qualified immunity if his “‘conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known … Our rejection of qualified immunity on the pleadings does not preclude individual Defendants from asserting qualified immunity later, “[o]nce an evidentiary record has been developed through discovery.” O’Brien v.

Knowlton Merritt v. John E. MacKey

827 F.2d 1368 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Sep 16, 1987

Vincent and Mackey are not entitled to qualified immunity protection because their conduct exceeded the scope of their authority and because they violated Merritt’s clearly established constitutional rights. … When the law is clearly established, as here, the qualified immunity defense fails “since a reasonably competent public official should know the law governing his conduct.”

Beier v. City of Lewiston

354 F.3d 1058 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jan 14, 2004

The Supreme Court reasoned that the consequences of such an argument would be “intolerable,” because the qualified immunity right would be easily defeated as long as the complaint alleges violation of one clearly established … Clearly Established Right “ ‘[C]learly established’ for purposes of qualified immunity means that ‘[t]he contours of the right must be sufficiently clear that a reasonable official would understand that what he is doing violates

Marty Emmons v. City of Escondido

921 F.3d 1172 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Apr 25, 2019

, and therefore the officer was entitled to qualified immunity. … Qualified immunity shields government officials from liability for civil damages when “their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights  EMMONS V.

In Re Copley Press, Inc.

518 F.3d 1022 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Mar 4, 2008

United States, 873 F.2d 1210, 1213 (9th Cir.1989), though logic alone, even without experience, may be enough to establish the right. See Seattle Times Co. v. U.S. Dist. … The court didn't clearly err in so finding and, in light of that finding, its decision to unseal these portions of the documents was not an abuse of discretion.

Florentina Demuth v. County of Los Angeles

798 F.3d 837 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Aug 14, 2015

We review the district court’s factual findings for clear error and its grant of qualified immunity de novo. … This doctrine protects government officials from suits for damages unless their actions violated “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Harlow v.