Case law

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.”

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.

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

Jeffrey Forter v. Randy Greer

536 F. App'x 724 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Aug 2, 2013

Moreover, defendants were entitled to qualified immunity and, as to the materials he eventually received, any injunctive relief would be moot. See Pearson v. … Callahan, 555 U.S. 223, 243 (2009) (state officers entitled to qualified immunity if their actions did not violate clearly established law); Warsoldier, 418 at 997 n.7 (“There exists little Ninth Circuit authority construing

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.

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?

Alexander v. County of Los Angeles

64 F.3d 1315 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Aug 29, 1995

under the clearly established principles of law governing that conduct. … Under this approach, we find that the officers are entitled to qualified immunity.

Eddie Ford v. City of Yakima

706 F.3d 1188 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Feb 8, 2013

Clearly Established Right The officers are nevertheless entitled to qualified immunity if Ford’s right was not clearly established when the officers booked and jailed him. … Because the law concerning the right in question was clearly established at the time of Ford’s arrest, the officers are not entitled to qualified immunity. IV.

Tan Lam v. City of Los Banos

976 F.3d 986 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Sep 25, 2020

In sum, the district court properly denied the Rule 50(b) motion on qualified immunity as to Lam’s Fourth Amendment claim. The law was clearly established at the 30 LAM V. … Officer Acosta is Entitled to Qualified Immunity An officer is entitled to qualified immunity if his conduct did not violate clearly established law. See Ashcroft v. al- Kidd, 563 U.S. 731, 735 (2011).

William R. Schwartzman, M.D. v. Fred Valenzuela Bamford Frankland, David Swoap

846 F.2d 1209 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · May 17, 1988

Qualified Immunity. The appellants next argue that the district court should have granted them summary judgment based upon qualified immunity against suit. … clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.”

Jon Hyde v. City of Willcox

23 F.4th 863 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jan 6, 2022

To determine whether an officer enjoys qualified immunity, the court asks, in the order it chooses, (i) whether the alleged misconduct violated a constitutional right and (ii) whether the right was clearly established at … Pralgo and Callahan-English violated clearly established law.

Edward Sialoi v. City of San Diego

823 F.3d 1223 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · May 24, 2016

Whether the constitutional right was clearly established As with the three teenagers, the background circumstances on which the defendants rely to establish qualified immunity (the officers presence in a high-crime … Thus, Sandoval’s discussion of clearly established law applies equally here.

Prison Legal News v. Lehman

397 F.3d 692 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jan 31, 2005

immunity because they violated clearly established law. … It also properly granted qualified immunity to the prison officials on this claim because their actions did not violate clearly established law.

Elder v. Holloway

984 F.2d 991 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jan 27, 1993

Harlow shifted the inquiry in qualified immunity cases from the subjective good faith of the government officials to the objective reasonableness of their conduct in light of clearly established law. … The Court is merely restating its holding by emphasizing that to defeat a qualified immunity claim there must be an identity between the sued-on right and the clearly established right.

Ernest Foster, Sr. v. Jeremy Hellawell

908 F.3d 1204 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Nov 20, 2018

In deciding such legal claims, we apply the Supreme Court’s qualified immunity standard. … “Qualified immunity attaches when an official’s conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Kisela v. Hughes, 138 S.

Dennis Lee Campbell v. Paul Burt, and John Doe (3), Police Officers

141 F.3d 927 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Apr 6, 1998

The primary issue before us is whether, for purposes of qualified immunity, the seven-day delay before filing the petition and obtaining post-deprivation judicial review violated Campbell’s clearly established procedural … However, “[a]n official is entitled to qualified immunity if the right which he allegedly violated is not ‘clearly established.’ ” Campbell, 949 F.Supp. at 1468 (quoting Anderson v.

Hung Lam v. City of San Jose

869 F.3d 1077 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Sep 5, 2017

Finding that the evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to Lam, demonstrated a constitutional violation of clearly established law, the district court denied Officer West’s motion based on qualified immunity.2 Officer … demonstrated a violation of clearly established law.”

Liberal v. Estrada

632 F.3d 1064 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jan 19, 2011

right violated was not clearly established at the time of the violation. … Construing the facts in favor of Plaintiff, the use of force was not reasonable and violated clearly established constitutional law. Therefore, Officers Estrada and Keegan are not entitled to qualified immunity. C.