Case law

Katz v. United States

194 F.3d 962 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Oct 22, 1999

On the issue of qualified immunity, the district court held that the law governing the use of force in an arrest was clearly established. … A defendant will always be entitled to qualified immunity when the law governing his or her conduct was not clearly established -the first prong of the qualified immunity defense. 30 As a fallback position, Saucier argues

Jones v. County of Los Angeles

802 F.3d 990 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Sep 21, 2015

However, “[s]pecific binding precedent is not required to show that a right is clearly established for qualified immunity purposes.” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted). … Step Two: Clearly Established Law The second prong of the qualified-immunity analysis asks whether the right in question was “clearly established” at the time of the violation.

Bird v. Dzurenda

131 F.4th 787 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Mar 13, 2025

We conclude that such a challenge fails to allege a violation of clearly established law and reverse the district court’s denial of qualified immunity. I. … “[I]n the prison context,” we have said that the “prohibition against retaliatory punishment” may violate “clearly established law” for qualified immunity purposes. Chavez v.

David N. OSOLINSKI, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Lt. KANE, Et Al., Defendants-Appellants

92 F.3d 934 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Aug 12, 1996

immunity, typically, the issue whether the federal right allegedly infringed was ‘clearly established’.” … “Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity only ‘insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.’ ” Allen v.

United States v. Jeffrey Lynn Franklin

235 F.3d 1165 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Dec 20, 2000

establish” that the predicate conviction qualified under § 924(e). … While in some cases a sentencing court properly might cumulate documentation of prior criminal convictions to find that such documentation “clearly establishes” a prior criminal conviction, in the context of an enhancement

John Benavidez v. County of San Diego

993 F.3d 1134 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Apr 12, 2021

“Qualified immunity shields government actors from civil liability under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 if ‘their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known … For a court to determine that a state actor is not entitled to qualified immunity under section 1983, there must be a constitutional violation on the facts alleged, and the constitutional right violated must be “clearly established

Jeffers v. Gomez

267 F.3d 895 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Oct 3, 2001

The availability of qualified immunity in such a case naturally turns on whether it was "clearly established law" that Motive Y was impermissible. … Determining whether a public official is entitled to qualified immunity "requires a two-part inquiry: (1) Was the law governing the state official's conduct clearly established?

Saved Magazine v. Spokane Police Department

19 F.4th 1193 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Dec 9, 2021

The panel held that Officer Doe was entitled to qualified immunity under the second prong of the qualified immunity analysis, which asks whether the constitutional right was clearly established at the time of defendant’s … Plaintiffs first argue that the district court erred in concluding that Officer Doe was entitled to qualified immunity because the law underpinning the alleged First Amendment violation was clearly established.

Dunn v. Castro

621 F.3d 1196 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Sep 14, 2010

On review of a denial of a motion to dismiss based on qualified immunity, we review de novo whether governing law was clearly established at the time of the alleged violation. See Mabe v. … [3] A court, when deciding whether there has been a viola- tion of a “clearly established right” for qualified immunity, must strike the proper balance in defining that right. In Ander- son v.

Miller v. Gammie

335 F.3d 889 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jul 9, 2003

a complaining witness in presenting a judge with a supporting affidavit to establish probable cause for an arrest. … We must now recognize that beyond those functions historically recognized as absolutely immune at common law, qualified and only qualified immunity exists.

Steven J. KELLEY, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Robert G. BORG, Defendant-Appellant

60 F.3d 664 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jul 28, 1995

Despite this erroneous statement in his order, however, the magistrate judge ultimately conducted the proper inquiry for a qualified immunity examination: He ruled that the right allegedly violated was clearly established … Appellants argue that they should have been granted qualified immunity because the second, “clearly established,” prong of the test has not been met.

Conner v. Heiman

672 F.3d 1126 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Mar 9, 2012

We further hold that Heiman and Neil did not violate clearly established rights by arresting Conner. … HEIMAN 2757 clearly established, the Supreme Court has specified that the application of that requirement must be clearly established in a particularized context. Saucier, 533 U.S. at 202.

Morgan v. Morgensen

465 F.3d 1041 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Oct 6, 2006

Whether the Constitutional Right was Clearly Established [7] We proceed to the second qualified immunity inquiry: whether that right was clearly established. … A prison official is not entitled to qualified immunity if the law governing his conduct was clearly established such that a reasonable prison official would know that his conduct was unlawful.

Douglas W. Schwenk v. James Hartford Steve Sinclair Robert Mitchell,opinion

204 F.3d 1187 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Feb 29, 2000

This satisfies the first part of the “analytical framework” for determining qualified immunity established in Siegert . … Was the Law Clearly Established?

Michael Hampton v. State of California

83 F.4th 754 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Oct 3, 2023

“The doctrine of qualified immunity shields officials from civil liability so long as their conduct ‘does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.’” … To be clearly established, the relevant right must have been defined more narrowly.

Daniels Sharpsmart, Inc. v. Karen Smith

889 F.3d 608 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · May 2, 2018

In determining whether qualified immunity applies, courts “must determine whether: (1) the facts adduced constitute the violation of a constitutional right; and (2) the constitutional right was clearly established at the … It is that rock upon which the district court’s qualified immunity decision founders. The district court was satisfied that, as it said, “[t]he extraterritorialty doctrine has been clearly established for decades.”

Penilla v. City of Huntington Park

115 F.3d 707 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jun 6, 1997

Because the officers have moved for qualified immunity on a motion to dismiss, we decide only whether defendants’ alleged conduct violated clearly established constitutional rights. Todd v. … The officers argue that they are entitled to qualified immunity because there is no clearly established constitutional right to emergency medical care for persons not in custody and because there is no clearly established

Richard Manriquez v. Joel Ensley

46 F.4th 1124 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Aug 30, 2022

But there still might not be “clearly established” case law in our circuit to withstand qualified immunity. Cf. Jessop v. … The officers are entitled to qualified immunity because it was not clearly established then that the search violated the Fourth Amendment.

Dennis Mize v. S. Tseng

703 F. App'x 547 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Nov 20, 2017

The district court properly dismissed Mize’s Eighth Amendment claim on the basis of qualified immunity because defendants’ conduct did not violate clearly established law. See Pearson v. … Callahan, 555 U.S. 223, 232 (2009) (defendant is entitled to qualified immunity unless the conduct at issue violated a clearly established constitutional right); Hope v.

Micah Jessop v. City of Fresno

918 F.3d 1031 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Mar 20, 2019

ANALYSIS “The doctrine of qualified immunity protects government officials ‘from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a … Assuming that to be true, however, the City Officers are entitled to qualified immunity because that right was not clearly established.