Case law

Keshone Owens v. James Dzurenda

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · May 16, 2023

but did not address whether the law was clearly established). 3 has begun to run.” … We reverse the district court’s denial of qualified immunity and remand with instructions to grant Appellants’ motion to dismiss based on qualified immunity.

Butler v. Elle

281 F.3d 1014 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Feb 26, 2002

Such immunity is an affirmative defense that bars civil liability damages insofar as the official’s conduct “does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have … In contrast to qualified immunity, absolute immunity does not require the official to have acted reasonably or in accordance with clearly established law.

Martin v. Fuller-Brisbon

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jul 1, 2025

’ actions contravened clearly established law at the time of the incident. … established).

Maria Morales v. Sonya Fry

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Oct 16, 2017

OPINION McKEOWN, Circuit Judge: The primary issue in this appeal is whether the “clearly established” prong of the qualified immunity analysis should be submitted to a jury. … That “legal question” as to “qualified immunity” was precisely what was the “clearly established” law which any reasonable officer would know.

Christopher Jones v. Dwight Neven

678 F. App'x 490 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Feb 1, 2017

To defeat a claim of qualified immunity, a plaintiff must establish a violation of a clearly established constitutional right. See Hamby v. Hammond, 821 F.3d 1085, 1090 (9th Cir. 2016). 1. … Nor were Defendants entitled to qualified immunity on this claim.

Huff v. City of Burbank

632 F.3d 539 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jan 11, 2011

Qualified Immunity Qualified immunity can shield government officials from individual civil lia *548 bility where their conduct “does not violate clearly established statutory , or constitutional rights of which a reasonable … If the officers violated such a right, but it was not clearly established, then they are entitled to immunity. Hopkins, 573 F.3d at 762 .

Friedman v. Boucher

580 F.3d 847 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jun 23, 2009

Because Friedman’s rights were clearly established at the time that Defendants took the sample, the Defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity. … Because the forcible taking of the DNA sample violated Friedman’s clearly established constitutional rights, neither Boucher nor Luzaich is entitled to qualified immunity.

Fleet Hamby v. Steven Hammond

821 F.3d 1085 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · May 2, 2016

For that reason alone, they did not violate a “clearly established” right, and so they must be entitled to qualified immunity. … Even if district court decisions could clearly establish the law for purposes of qualified immunity, the cases on which Hamby relies cannot do the work he asks of them. a One of the cases Hamby cites denied qualified immunity

Kitrich Powell v. James Gibbons

453 F. App'x 712 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Oct 11, 2011

Dismissal was proper on Powell’s claim concerning the opening of his legal mail outside of his presence because defendants were entitled to qualified immunity. See Pearson v. … Callahan, 555 U.S. 223 (2009) (concluding that state officers were entitled to qualified immunity because their actions did not violate clearly established law); Sherman v.

Joe Abbott v. E. Tootell

631 F. App'x 487 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jan 27, 2016

ruling on qualified immunity, George v. Edholm, 752 F.3d 1206, 1214 (9th Cir. 2014), and we affirm. … Ct. 2074, 2080, 2083 (2011) (setting forth qualified immunity test and recognizing that a clearly established right does “not require a case directly on point”).

Cousins v. Lockyer

568 F.3d 1063 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jun 15, 2009

qualified immunity. … Qualified immunity protects government officials from civil liability if “their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Harlow v.

Brian Ballentine v. Christopher Tucker

28 F.4th 54 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Mar 8, 2022

The district court concluded that Detective Tucker is entitled to qualified immunity because Plaintiffs’ constitutional rights were not clearly established at the time of their arrests. … A government officer is nevertheless entitled to qualified immunity if the plaintiff’s rights were not clearly established at the time of the alleged misconduct. See Pearson, 555 U.S. at 231–32.

Brown v. Tromba

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · May 29, 2026

City of Tulare, 107 F.4th 894, 898 (9th Cir. 2024) (“Qualified immunity protects government officials from liability under § 1983 unless (1) they violated a federal statutory or constitutional right, and (2) the unlawfulness … of their conduct was clearly established at the time.”

San Jose Charter of the Hells Angels Motorcycle Club v. City of San Jose

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

Second, if so, was that right clearly established? Id. … Linderman argues that he nonetheless is entitled to qualified immunity because there is no clearly established law in this case-specific context.

Warren Armstead v. Keith Fields

638 F. App'x 601 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jan 7, 2016

We review district court rulings on qualified immunity and summary judgment de novo. Furnace v. Sullivan, 705 F.3d 1021, 1026 (9th Cir. 2013). … Qualified immunity involves a two-step inquiry: (1) whether the officers’ conduct violated a statutory or constitutional right; and (2) whether that right was clearly established at the time of the alleged violation such

Lynne Meredith Gayle Bybee Jenifer Meredith Bernadette Keller Carla Figaro, the People of California, Ex Rel. v. Andrew Erath

342 F.3d 1057 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Sep 8, 2003

Before today, however, it had not been clearly established that this conduct would violate Bybee’s constitutional rights. Therefore, as to this portion of Bybee’s claim, Agent Erath is entitled to qualified immunity. … A right is clearly established if a reasonable agent would have understood *1061 that what he was doing violated that right. Id.

Arnold B. WILLIAMS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. EDWARD APFFELS COFFEE COMPANY, Bill Berry and J.C. Hill, Defendants-Appellees

792 F.2d 1482 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jul 1, 1986

Williams is clearly within a protected group and has suffered an adverse employ *1488 ment decision. … Williams has also clearly suffered a loss of earnings as a result of not being hired for the permanent position.

Dawn Case v. Kitsap County Sheriff's Department

249 F.3d 921 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · May 9, 2001

In determining whether the deputies are entitled to qualified immunity, we must ask two questions: (1) Was the law governing the officer's conduct clearly established? … Where, as here, the law is clearly established and officers cannot claim to have been reasonable in failing to comply, qualified immunity cannot be granted.

J.P. v. County of Alameda

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Mar 2, 2020

that the official has violated was clearly established at the time of the violation.” … See Shafer, 868 F.3d at 1117 (holding that qualified immunity applies if no clearly established law exists on the issue); see also White v. Pauly, 137 S.

Ronald Mendoza v. Sherman Block, Los Angeles County

27 F.3d 1357 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · May 31, 1994

“[W]hen qualified immunity is at stake, [however], a court must first determine whether the law has been clearly established.” Romero, 931 F.2d at 628 . … Objective Reasonableness If the law governing an official’s conduct is clearly established, qualified immunity is available if a reasonable official could have believed the conduct at issue was lawful under that clearly established