Case law

O'Connor v. Terhune

32 F. App'x 314 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Mar 4, 2002

We reverse and remand with instructions to enter judgment for the defendants dismissing this case on the ground of qualified immunity. We review the denial of qualified immunity de novo. Branch v. … Nowhere is it clearly established that a prisoner may not be moved from a lesser classification to a higher classification because of some abstract increase in danger.

Pierce v. Multnomah County

76 F.3d 1032 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Feb 14, 1996

The availability of qualified immunity “generally turns on the ‘objective legal reasonableness’ of the action, assessed in light of the legal rules that were ‘clearly established’ at the time it was taken.” Anderson v. … Clearly Established Law The threshold issue in determining whether an officer’s conduct is objectively legally reasonable is whether the law regarding the right that the plaintiff claims has been violated was “clearly established

Meyer v. Fidelity Savings

944 F.2d 562 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Sep 13, 1991

The issue of qualified immunity should not have been submitted to the jury because Pattullo violated no clearly established law. See Schwartzman v. … Valenzuela, 846 F.2d 1209, 1211 (9th Cir.1988) (question of clearly established right is question of law). Thus, any error in the qualified immunity instruction was harmless.

Curnow v. The Ridgecrest Police

952 F.2d 321 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Dec 26, 1991

McDONALD, District Judge: 5 Defendants appeal the district court's denial of their motion for summary judgment based upon qualified immunity. … III. 28 Defendants-appellants moved for summary judgment on the basis of qualified immunity.

Ward v. Day

107 F. App'x 727 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jul 21, 2004

As to the additional question whether the law was clearly established as to these defendants, which would defeat qualified immunity, we agree with the district court that a jury here should decide whether a reasonable officer … Under the circumstances of this case, because relevant factual issues were raised, a summary judgment granting qualified immunity to defendants was not warranted. See Saucier v.

Somavia v. Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Dept.

15 F.3d 1089 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jan 28, 1994

"When a law enforcement officer asserts qualified immunity from liability for civil rights violations, the district court must determine whether, in light of clearly established principles governing the conduct in question … Even if the officers in this case were mistaken in believing the search of the trailer was legal, they would still be entitled to immunity if their mistake was reasonable in light of clearly established law and the circumstances

Tekle Ex Rel. Tekle v. United States

511 F.3d 839 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Dec 3, 2007

"[I]n the absence of binding precedent, we `look to whatever decisional law is available to ascertain whether the law is clearly established for qualified immunity purposes, including decisions of state courts, other circuits … As stated above, the UNITED STATES shall not be shielded in qualified immunity from liability for civil damages when the conduct of its agents violates clearly established or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person

Swan v. United States

32 F. App'x 315 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Mar 4, 2002

The test for determining whether an official can be shielded by qualified immunity is two-fold. … Accordingly, Young Miller’s conduct did not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person could have known” and she is protected from liability for civil damages by qualified

Leonard R. Milstein v. Stephen L. Cooley Robert B. Foltz Countyof Los Angeles, Opinion

257 F.3d 1004 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jul 20, 2001

The Supreme Court has established several principles for analyzing a prosecutor’s claim of absolute immunity. … (“A prosecutor may only shield his investigative work with qualified immunity.”).

United States v. Nicholas Needham

718 F.3d 1190 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jun 14, 2013

We also concluded, however, that “[t]he law in this circuit had not been clearly established regarding whether allegations of sexual misconduct or molestation at a place of work provide probable cause to search a residence … But because the standard for granting qualified immunity is the same as the standard of objective reasonableness under Leon , we cannot consistently grant qualified immunity to officers in Dougherty , who relied on the warrant

96 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 240, 96 Daily Journal D.A.R. 368 Marie Pellegrino, as Administratrix of the Goods, Chattels and Credits Which Were of John Pellegrino Marie Pellegrino, Individually and Joseph Pellegrino v. United States of America United States Department of the Treasury, Customs Service Nicholas Brady, as Secretary of U.S. Department of the Treasury Carol B. Hallett, as Commissioner of U.S. Customs Service Paul Andrews, as District Director of U.S. Customs Service in California Stephen A. Fanter and Jeffrey Woods, Marie Pellegrino, as Administratrix of the Goods, Chattels and Credits Which Were of John Pellegrino Marie Pellegrino, Individually and Joseph Pellegrino v. United States of America, and Stephen A. Fanter

73 F.3d 934 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jan 10, 1996

Both parties appeal; Fanter from the district court's order denying him qualified immunity and the Pellegrinos urging that the facts do not justify qualified immunity protection for either agent. I. … A determination of qualified immunity turns "on the resolution of the essentially legal question whether the conduct of which the plaintiff complains violated clearly established law." Id. at 526 , 105 S.Ct. at 2815 .

Benito Acosta v. City of Costa Mesa

694 F.3d 960 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Sep 5, 2012

B “Qualified immunity shields government officials from civil damages liability unless the official violated a statutory or constitutional right that was clearly established at the time of the challenged conduct.” … Under the second prong we examine whether the right was clearly established. Id.

Neftali Monzon v. City of Murrieta

966 F.3d 946 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jul 22, 2020

If they did not violate a constitutional right that was clearly established at the time of the events at issue in this case, then the “doctrine of qualified immunity protects” them “from liability for civil damages.” … And it weighs in favor of qualified immunity.

Jonathan Capp v. County of San Diego

936 F.3d 899 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Aug 30, 2019

Clearly Established Having determined that Plaintiffs plead a plausible First Amendment retaliation claim, we now move to the second prong of the qualified immunity analysis: whether “the right at issue was ‘clearly … We conclude that Plaintiffs have sufficiently pleaded a violation of their clearly established First Amendment rights, and that Firth is therefore not entitled to qualified immunity.

Bilbrey ex rel. Bilbrey v. Brown

738 F.2d 1462 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Aug 2, 1984

Appellants are entitled to judgment that appellees’ conduct did not qualify for immunity. … ■clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.

Cox v. Roskelley

359 F.3d 1105 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Feb 20, 2004

clearly established constitutional norms. … However, the "clearly established" prong of the qualified immunity inquiry should not be written out of existence entirely.

Ramirez v. City of Buena Park

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Mar 25, 2009

BUENA PARK 3807 established, there is no necessity for further inquiries concern- ing qualified immunity.” Saucier, 533 U.S. at 201. … Under Saucier’s second prong, we ask “whether the right was clearly established.” Id.

Bryan v. MacPherson

608 F.3d 614 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jun 18, 2010

Did Officer MacPherson Violate Bryan’s Clearly Established Rights? … Two other panels have recently, in cases involving different circumstances, concluded that the law regarding tasers is not sufficiently clearly established to warrant denying officers qualified immunity. Mattos v.

Lambert v. Richard

59 F.3d 134 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jul 10, 1995

protected, Richard and Ream were not entitled to qualified immunity. … When the law is clearly established, public officials are immune only when they objectively could have believed that their conduct was lawful. Act Up/Portland v. Bagley, 988 F.2d 868, 871 (9th Cir.1993).

Briscoe-King v. Terhune

43 F. App'x 45 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jul 26, 2002

If a violation is made out, we ask if the right was clearly established. Id. … Taken in the light most favorable to Briscoe-King, the facts here fail to establish entitlement to qualified immunity. AFFIRMED. .