Case law

Eklund v. City of Seattle Municipal Court

628 F.3d 473 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Nov 24, 2010

Bonner is entitled to qualified immunity if his “ ‘conduct [did] not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.’ ” See James v. … Callahan, 555 U.S. 223 , 129 S.Ct. 808, 818 , 172 L.Ed.2d 565 (2009), courts have discretion to grant qualified immunity if the right at issue was not clearly established at the time, without deciding whether there was a

Lantz v. Crate

268 F. App'x 548 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Feb 27, 2008

This right was clearly established at the time of Kreider’s actions. See Saucier, 533 U.S. at 200, 121 S.Ct. 2151 (describing the second inquiry). … Because this right was clearly established at the time of Kreider’s actions, the district court erred by granting qualified immunity on this claim.

Petri Antero Ahonen v. Enrique Varela

53 F.3d 337 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · May 3, 1995

II 8 Police officers are immune from suit if (1) the "right" they allegedly violated was not "clearly established" at the time of the violation, or (2) if a reasonable officer would have thought that the defendant's actions … The Fourth Amendment prohibition on the use of excessive force in the course of an arrest is a clearly established right. Hansen v. Black, 885 F.2d 642, 645 (9th Cir. 1989).

Harger v. Department of Labor

569 F.3d 898 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jun 10, 2009

Ingleson, 558 F.3d 888 , 891 n.5 (9th Cir.2009) (“Because this argument was not raised clearly and distinctly in the opening brief, it has been waived.”); Greenwood v. … The Court further stated that its holding was in accord with its prior decisions “establishing that sovereign immunity bars creditors from attaching or garnishing funds in the Treasury, or enforcing liens against property

Bull v. City & County Sf

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Aug 21, 2008

ground of qualified immunity. … court’s denial of qualified immunity.

Daniel Vance v. Jay Barrett E.K. McDaniel Becky Messick Robert Miller Michael Scheel, Timothy H. Johnson v. Ron Angelone Jay Barrett E.K. McDaniel Becky Messick Robert Miller Michael Scheel

345 F.3d 1083 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Sep 30, 2003

when deciding whether the prison officials are entitled to qualified immunity: "(1) Was the law governing the state official's conduct clearly established? … In 1995, we held that our law regarding retaliation against inmates was clearly established for qualified immunity purposes, see Schroeder v.

Sissoko v. United States

440 F.3d 1145 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Mar 16, 2006

Rocha contends, in con- trast, that she is entitled to qualified immunity from any damages liability. … Violation of a clearly established right?

The San Jose Charter of the Hells Angels Motorcycle Club, an Unincorporated Association James Arnett Marnie Arnett Robert Brancato Leslie Brancato Ronald Cook Vicki Bozzi Fillmore Cross Margaret Cross Ted Demello Deborah Van Tassel James Elrite Molly Elrite Larry Gorham Jeffrey Pettigrew James Souza Robert Vieira Lori Vieira James Welch Gregory Wilkins Denise Wilkins v. City of San Jose, a Municipal Corporation, and Decena, Sgt. Carney, Sgt. Messier, Officer Nieves, Officer Michael Fernandez, Police Officer, San Jose Police Officer William Manion, Police Officer, San Jose Police Officer D. Newman, Police Officer, San Jose Police Officer Knox, Police Officer, San Jose Police Officer, the San Jose Charter of the Hells Angels Motorcycle Club, an Unincorporated Association James Arnett Marnie Arnett Robert Brancato Leslie Brancato Ronald Cook Vicki Bozzi Fillmore Cross Margaret Cross Ted Demello Deborah Van Tassel James Elrite Molly Elrite Larry Gorham Jeffrey Pettigrew James Souza Robert Vieira Lori Vieira James Welch Gregory Wilkins Denise Wilkins v. City of San Jose, a Municipal Corporation Decena, Sgt. Carney, Sgt. Messier, Officer Nieves, Officer Michael Fernandez, Police Officer, San Jose Police Officer William Manion, Police Officer, San Jose Police Officer D. Newman, Police Officer, San Jose Police Officer Knox, Police Officer, San Jose Police Officer Jorge Gil-Blanco, Officer Charles Gillingham, Sheriff Mark Tracy, Sheriff City of Capitola Donald Braunton M. Laplant, Fbi Agent Keith Little, Officer San Jose Police Dept. Net Entry Team San Jose Police Dept. M.E.R.G.E. Unit 2 James Greer Ronald Lebaudour Santa Clara Police Officers Coffman, Officer Gilroy Police Dept., and Robert Linderman, Deputy Sheriff, in His Individual Capacity

402 F.3d 962 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Apr 4, 2005

Second, if so, was that right clearly established? Id. … immunity analysis, the second step asks whether the constitutional right was clearly established.

Sissoko v. United States

412 F.3d 1021 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jun 12, 2005

We review the district court’s qualified immunity determination de novo. … Violation of a clearly established right?

Albert William Demoran v. F.A. Witt and John Does 1-4.

781 F.2d 155 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jan 24, 1986

These factors are characteristics of functions that are inherently judicial and that require absolute as opposed to qualified immunity. … B Absolute immunity fails to attach to judicial officers only when they act clearly and completely outside the scope of their jurisdiction. Stump v.

Price v. Hawaii

921 F.2d 950 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Dec 26, 1990

Qualified Immunity. … More pertinently, perhaps, officials performing discretionary functions, as were these officials, are entitled to qualified immunity if their conduct “does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights

James Johnson, Iii v. County Of Los Angeles

340 F.3d 787 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Aug 15, 2003

City of Bremerton, 268 F.3d 646, 650 (9th Cir.2001). 1 48 * In Saucier, the Supreme Court established a two-step evaluation of qualified immunity. … His use of force was objectively reasonable and he is entitled to qualified immunity.

John Cruz v. City of Spokane

66 F.4th 1193 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Apr 28, 2023

Specifically, (a) does the provision grant immunity for even intentional torts, and (b) can acts committed with unlawful intent qualify as “official acts performed in the course of . . . duties”? … Therefore, Cruz argues that further discovery regarding, for example, discriminatory or retaliatory intent and any departures from established policies and procedures may establish a genuine dispute of material fact.

Galvin v. Hay

361 F.3d 1134 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Mar 18, 2004

DISCUSSION I Qualified Immunity Qualified immunity analysis proceeds in two stages. We must first inquire whether the plaintiffs have established a constitutional violation. … Until then, the constitutional right violated by the defendants was not clearly established. The defendants are therefore entitled to qualified immunity for the narrow tailoring violation.

Tabarez v. Butler

340 F. App'x 369 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jul 9, 2009

In Mitchell , the Supreme Court emphasized that “the appealable issue is a purely legal one: whether the facts alleged ... support a claim of violation of clearly established law.” … As a result, the magistrate did not reach the defense of qualified immunity with respect to Tabarez’s claim against Rios.

Brown v. Li

299 F.3d 1092 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Aug 12, 2002

Qualified Immunity on the First Amendment Claim We apply a three-step test to determine whether a defendant is entitled to qualified immunity on a federal constitutional claim. … Qualified Immunity on the Procedural Due Process Claim Plaintiff also argues that Defendants violated his clearly established right to due process when they “withheld [Plaintiffs] degree and otherwise harmed [him] without

Ferguson v. City of Phoenix

157 F.3d 668 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Sep 3, 1998

To determine if an individual is entitled to qualified immunity, we must determine (1) the specific right allegedly violated; (2) whether this right was so “clearly established” as to alert a reasonable officer to its constitutional … Therefore, we conclude that the right at issue was not clearly established, and as a result, Commander Rodabough was entitled to qualified immunity.

Martino Recchia v. City of La Dept. Animal Svcs.

889 F.3d 553 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · May 1, 2018

We instruct the district court to consider in the first instance whether the Officers are nonetheless entitled to qualified immunity because any constitutional violation was not clearly established at the time it was committed … On remand, we instruct the district court to consider in the first instance whether the Officers are entitled to qualified immunity for any potential constitutional violation because it was not “clearly established” at the

Alvarez-Machain v. United States

96 F.3d 1246 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Sep 24, 1996

The district court allowed the action to proceed on conduct by DEA agents acting within the United States, however, holding that the alleged conduct, if proved, clearly violated established constitutional rights. … DEA Agents Qualified Immunity Pre-trial detainees possess a clearly established right to be free from punishment. Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520, 534-37 , 99 S.Ct. 1861, 1871-73 , 60 L.Ed.2d 447 (1979).

95 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 7156, 95 Daily Journal D.A.R. 12,365 Terry F. Newell v. Frank Sauser Lou Easter Sharon Starr, Sgt. Disciplinary Committee Chairperson Tom Reimer, Sgt. Robert Hartzler, Officer of the Spring Creek Correctional Center in Their Individual and Official Capacities

64 F.3d 1416 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Sep 11, 1995

In determining whether an official is entitled to qualified immunity, we (1) identify the specific right allegedly violated; (2) determine whether the right was "clearly established;" and (3) determine whether a reasonable … Conclusion 17 The district court correctly held that defendants were not entitled to qualified immunity because Newell alleged a violation of clearly established constitutional rights of which a reasonable official should