Case law

Lawrence Thompson v. Pete Copeland

885 F.3d 582 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Mar 13, 2018

Dissenting, Judge Christen would hold that the police officer was not entitled to qualified immunity on plaintiff’s excessive force claim because plaintiff’s right not to have a gun pointed at his head was clearly established … Conclusion Because the law was not clearly established within the parameters dictated by the Supreme Court, Copeland is entitled to qualified immunity and the grant of summary judgment is AFFIRMED.

Sandoval v. Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department

756 F.3d 1154 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jul 1, 2014

LAS VEGAS METRO POLICE DEP’T 11 For qualified immunity purposes, in determining whether a constitutional right was clearly established, it is not enough that there is a generally established proposition … LAS VEGAS METRO POLICE DEP’T constitutional right was clearly established for qualified immunity purposes. See also Tekle v.

Ed Knox, an Individual v. Southwest Airlines, a Texas Corporation, and David Swafford Robert Hopper City of Phoenix, a Municipality

124 F.3d 1103 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Sep 5, 1997

immunity-typically, the issue whether a federal right allegedly infringed was clearly established. … Merits of Qualified Immunity Decision To determine whether qualified immunity is appropriate, a court must identify the specific right allegedly violated and determine “whether that right was so clearly established as to

Scott Hernandez v. Town of Gilbert

989 F.3d 739 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Mar 4, 2021

immunity where the law was clearly established, but the officer’s conduct was not objectively reasonable. … IV Because Hernandez cannot identify a violation of any “clearly established” right, Officer Gilbert is entitled to qualified immunity.

Jamie Kirkpatrick v. County of Washoe

792 F.3d 1184 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jul 10, 2015

to qualified immunity on B.W.’s claim. *1193 See United States ex rel. … “Qualified immunity shields federal and state officials from money damages unless a plaintiff pleads facts showing (1) that the official violated a statutory or constitutional right, and (2) that the right was ‘clearly established

Rosa Cuevas v. City of Tulare

107 F.4th 894 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jul 10, 2024

III 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 … Accordingly, the officers are entitled to qualified immunity. AFFIRMED.

P.B. v. Koch

96 F.3d 1298 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Sep 27, 1996

Koch moved for qualified immunity, contending that his. conduct did not violate clearly established constitutional rights. … 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?

Karen Kennedy v. Los Angeles Police Department City of Los Angeles James J. King Stanley A. Schott

887 F.2d 920 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Oct 11, 1989

They advance two bases to support this contention: *923 (1) that probable cause to arrest was established as a matter of law; and (2) that they were entitled to qualified immunity as a matter of law. … Our preceding discussion about the obvious lack of probable cause is dispositive of the qualified immunity question.

Thorne v. City of El Segundo

802 F.2d 1131 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Oct 20, 1986

. § 1983 claim against the individual defendants on grounds of qualified good faith immunity. The City of El Segundo cross-appeals the award of attorneys’ fees to Thorne in the amount of $34,900. … Qualified Immunity Government officials performing discretionary functions are shielded from liability for civil damages if their conduct does not violate “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a

Noelle Way v. County of Ventura Robert Brooks Karen Hanson

348 F.3d 808 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Oct 31, 2003

alleged; second, assuming the violation is established, the question whether the right was clearly established must be considered on a more specific level.” … It is likewise beyond dispute that multiple appeals are possible in certain circumstances: “Mitchell clearly establishes that an order rejecting the defense of qualified immunity at either the dismissal stage or the summary

Martel v. County of Los Angeles

21 F.3d 940 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Apr 12, 1994

That is clearly sufficient to meet the Lane requirement. … Because the violation here clearly prejudiced Martel’s ability to prepare his case, we must reverse. III.

Redding v. Safford Unified School Dist. No. 1

531 F.3d 1071 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jul 11, 2008

Because these constitutional principles were clearly established at the time that middle school officials directed and conducted the search, the school official in charge is not entitled to qualified immunity from suit for … The conclusion that Sa-vana’s constitutional rights were not violated rendered consideration of the second step of qualified immunity—whether the right was clearly established—unnecessary.

Ellen Keates v. Michael Koile

883 F.3d 1228 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Mar 6, 2018

But on the other hand, defendants are entitled to qualified immunity so long as “their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” … KOILE Turning to the second prong of the qualified immunity inquiry, “whether the right was clearly established,” Saucier, 533 U.S. at 201, we must determine whether it was so clear that Koile’s actions violated Keates

Ruta Marie Kahn v. Immigration and Naturalization Service

20 F.3d 960 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Mar 25, 1994

II The Board, acting on behalf of the Attorney General, may establish standards to guide the exercise of discretion in granting waivers of deportation under § 212(c) “as long as [they] are rationally related to the statutory … Nonetheless, it was clearly a significant one.

Act Up!/Portland v. Bagley

988 F.2d 868 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jul 24, 1992

II QUALIFIED IMMUNITY We review a district court’s denial of a qualified immunity defense de novo. Baker v. Racansky, 887 F.2d 183, 185 (9th Cir.1989). … When a law enforcement officer asserts qualified immunity from liability for Fourth Amendment violations, the district court must determine whether, in light of clearly established principles governing the conduct in question

Francisco Jose Rivero Pacific Internment Services, a California Corporation v. City and County of San Francisco, and Joseph Surdyka Boyd Stephens

316 F.3d 857 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Dec 20, 2002

Valuable Governmental Benefit Government officials 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 … That is, they argue that it was not “clearly established” that the outcome of the Pickering balancing test favored Rivero.

Paul L. Gabbert v. David Conn Carol Najera Leslie Zoeller Elliot Oppenheim

131 F.3d 793 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Dec 8, 1997

Qualified Immunity Alternatively, Conn and Najera claim they are entitled to qualified immunity. … The final step in a qualified immunity analysis is whether a reasonable official could have believed the conduct at issue was lawful under that clearly' established law. See Mendoza, 27 F.3d at 1362 .

Decoria v. County of Jefferson

333 F. App'x 171 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · May 20, 2009

Titland is not entitled to qualified immunity if (1) his conduct violated a constitutional right, and (2) that right was “clearly established” at the time of the constitutional violation. Saucier v. … We conclude that the alleged constitutional right at issue here was not “clearly established” in 2005, and that Titland is therefore entitled to qualified immunity.

Decoria v. County of Jefferson

333 F. App'x 171 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · May 20, 2009

Titland is not entitled to qualified immunity if (1) his conduct violated a constitutional right, and (2) that right was “clearly established” at the time of the constitutional violation. Saucier v. … We conclude that the alleged constitutional right at issue here was not “clearly established” in 2005, and that Titland is therefore entitled to qualified immunity.

Fredrick Waid v. County of Lyon

87 F.4th 383 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Nov 21, 2023

III 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 reasonable person would … COUNTY OF LYON 19 IV Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity on the Fourth Amendment claim because plaintiffs’ rights were not clearly established.