Case law

Jose A. Sonoda v. Antonio R. Cabrera

255 F.3d 1035 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jul 3, 2001

Qualified Immunity 23 The individual defendants, to the extent they have been sued in their individual capacities for violation of§ 1983, have raised qualified immunity as an affirmative defense. … Because Sonoda has established a constitutional violation based upon due process, it is necessary to determine whether the defendants are entitled to qualified immunity.

Randall v. Williamson

211 F. App'x 565 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Nov 22, 2006

Whether it would be clear to a reasonable officer that he acted unlawfully in the situation determines the latter qualified immunity inquiry — namely, whether the right is “clearly established.” … clearly established.

Broidy Capital Management, LLC v. State of Qatar

982 F.3d 582 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Dec 2, 2020

In establishing such exceptions, the FSIA generally codifies the so-called “restrictive theory” of sovereign immunity, under which immunity “is recognized with regard to sovereign or public acts (jure imperii) of a state, … a foreign state is not entitled to immunity.”). 2 There is, of course, no dispute that the State of Qatar qualifies as a “foreign state” for purposes of the FSIA, and it is therefore immune from jurisdiction here unless

Moreno v. Baca

400 F.3d 1152 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Mar 7, 2005

The court denied the deputies’ motion for summary judgment on qualified immunity grounds, holding that Moreno’s constitutional right to be free from suspi-cionless searches was “clearly established” at the time of the detention … Appellants’ first argument in favor of qualified immunity — that it was not clearly established that Moreno had any right to be free from suspicionless searches because of his parole status and his outstanding arrest warrant

Prison Legal News v. Washington State Department of Corrections

11 F. App'x 729 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Mar 21, 2001

“Law enforcement officers ... enjoy qualified immunity from civil damage suits unless their conduct violates ‘clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.’ ” Schwenk … The district court erred, however, by also dismissing the plaintiffs remaining claims for declaratory and injunctive relief pursuant to a finding of qualified immunity.

Neaves v. City of San Diego

70 F. App'x 428 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jun 27, 2003

The grant of summary judgment was based on defendants’ qualified immunity. … We affirm the district court’s grant of summary judgment against Makenzie’s claim of unlawful seizure on the basis of qualified immunity.

Alford v. Haner

333 F.3d 972 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jun 23, 2003

Defendants claimed they were entitled to qualified immunity and had probable cause for the arrest. … The first question under the two-part inquiry for determining whether the officers are entitled to qualified immunity is whether the "law governing the official's conduct [was] clearly established." Act-Up!/Portland v.

Swan v. Cochran

56 F.3d 73 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · May 19, 1995

Sec. 1341 , for failure to state a claim; and (2) in his private capacity on the ground of qualified immunity. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. … Private Capacity Claims 7 "Qualified immunity protects government officials performing discretionary functions from liability for civil damages, unless the official's conduct violates clearly established statutory or constitutional

Flores v. Morgan Hill Unified School District

18 F. App'x 646 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Sep 10, 2001

. *648 Defendants contend that they are entitled to immunity from suit because, at the time of the alleged harassment, the law was not clearly established that the students were entitled under the Equal Protection Clause … The defendants further contend that even if the law were clearly established, the administrators’ actions were objectively reasonable.

Winterrowd v. Nelson

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Mar 30, 2007

Because we held in Meredith that the law on this point was clearly established as of July 10, 1998, it was also clearly established for the later incident here. … of qualified immunity.

Erwine v. Westbrook

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Sep 11, 2026

Those who act while clad in its armor cannot be held liable for damages under any circumstances, even if they violate clearly established federal rights, and even if they do so intentionally or maliciously.” Brooks v. … V The last ground urged for affirmance is qualified immunity. The district court did not reach the Tribal Officers’ qualified immunity defenses.

Bollinger v. Oregon

305 F. App'x 344 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Dec 11, 2008

The district court did not err in precluding Bollinger’s proposed witnesses from testifying about whether the law was clearly established. See Act Up.!/Portland v. … Bagley, 988 F.2d 868, 873 (9th Cir.1993) (“The threshold determination of whether the law governing the conduct at issue is clearly established is a question of law for the court.”).

Kristianne M. Boyd v. Benton County City of Corvallis William Ellison Scott Bressler Dave Reed Tom Cook Ryan Moody John Chilcote Allen Schermerhorn David Scott Shawn Houck Ken Rueben Dennis Carson, as Supervisor in His Official Capacity Chris Skinner, as Supervisor in His Official Capacity, Kristianne M. Boyd v. Benton County William Ellison Scott Bressler Dave Reed Tom Cook Ryan Moody John Chilcote Allen Schermerhorn David Scott Chris Skinner, as Supervisor in His Official Capacity, and City of Corvallis Shawn Houck Ken Rueben Dennis Carson, as Supervisor in His Official Capacity

374 F.3d 773 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jun 28, 2004

Qualified Immunity 17 The Supreme Court has established a two-part analysis for determining whether qualified immunity is appropriate in a suit against an officer for an alleged violation of a constitutional right. … Consequently, the officers are entitled to qualified immunity because Boyd's Fourth Amendment right to be free from dangerous flash-bang devices under these circumstances was not clearly established. B.

Mendoza v. Blodgett

960 F.2d 1425 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Apr 1, 1992

Qualified Immunity As a general rule, an official 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.” … Because the impropriety of the defendants’ conduct was not clearly established before this case, the defendants are entitled to qualified immunity. E.

Elgin Haynie v. County of Los Angeles Los Angeles County Sheriff Lee Baca David Mertens Jensen, Deputies, in Their Personal and Official Capacities

339 F.3d 1071 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Aug 12, 2003

The appellees claim that their actions are protected under qualified immunity. … Because we conclude that Haynie has failed to allege facts sufficient to establish a violation of any constitutional right, “there is no necessity for further inquiries concerning qualified immunity.”

Jesse Engebretson v. Mike Mahoney

724 F.3d 1034 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · May 30, 2013

Second, the Engebretsons argue that qualified immunity is sufficient to protect prison officials enforcing court orders. … granting only qualified immunity.

Franet v. County of Alameda Social Services Agency

291 F. App'x 32 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Aug 14, 2008

As the jury found that Castro’s conduct violated Franet’s constitutional rights and the judge found that those rights were clearly established, Castro is not entitled to qualified immunity for the removal. … The decision of whether or not a right is clearly established is the province of the judge, not the jury, and the law on this right was not clearly established. See Wilson v.

Moreno v. Baca

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Dec 8, 2005

The court denied the deputies’ motion for summary judgment on qualified immunity grounds, holding that More- no’s constitutional right to be free from suspicionless searches was “clearly established” at the time of the detention … Appellants’ first argument in favor of qualified immunity — that it was not clearly established that Moreno had any right to be free from suspicionless searches because of his parole status and his outstanding arrest warrant

Hernandez v. City of Salem

332 F. App'x 366 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · May 11, 2009

Qualified immunity shields law enforcement officers from personal liability unless “the unconstitutionality of the officers’ conduct was clearly established.” Pearson v. … We REVERSE the district court’s order denying Connolly qualified immunity and REMAND for entry of judgment in favor of Connolly.

Crowe v. County of San Diego

593 F.3d 841 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jan 14, 2010

[8] Further, the defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity. … The district court denied qualified immunity, concluding that it was clearly established that probable cause must be particularized with respect to the person to be searched or seized. Id.