Case law

Lawrence v. United States

340 F.3d 952 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Aug 21, 2003

If the right is not clearly established, the defendant is entitled to qualified immunity. Id. … “[Qualified immunity shields agents ... if ‘a reasonable officer could have believed [the action] to be lawful, in light of clearly established law and the information the [arresting] officers possessed.’ ” Hunter v.

Duran v. City Of Douglas

904 F.2d 1372 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jun 4, 1990

However, the Supreme Court has established a limited exception to this rule: "[A] district court's denial of a claim of qualified immunity, to the extent that it turns on an issue of law, is an appealable 'final decision' … The legal issues involved in that appeal--whether Aguilar violated clearly established constitutional protections--are identical to those governing the question of Aguilar's qualified immunity.

Rhodes v. Robinson

408 F.3d 559 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Apr 25, 2005

Rowland, 65 F.3d 802 , 806 & n. 4 (9th Cir.1995) ("[T]he prohibition against retaliatory punishment is `clearly established law' in the Ninth Circuit, for qualified immunity purposes. … must first reiterate our firm recognition that "the prohibition against retaliatory punishment is `clearly established law' in the Ninth Circuit, for qualified immunity purposes."

Brewster v. Shasta County

27 F. App'x 908 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Dec 28, 2001

in which the determination of qualified immunity depends on disputed issues of material fact.” … “clearly established right” violated by their suggestive conduct in relation to the photo array and live lineup.

Hydrick v. Hunter

449 F.3d 978 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jun 1, 2006

Thus, there are two bodies of law from which we might draw "clearly established" law for qualified immunity purposes: first, where the SVPs claim a violation of a right that is clearly established even in the prison context … established" law for qualified immunity purposes: first, where the SVPs claim a violation of a right that is clearly established even in the prison context, and second, where the SVPs claim a violation of a right that is

Jim Maxwell v. County of San Diego

697 F.3d 941 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Sep 13, 2012

Qualified immunity protects government officers “from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known … To determine whether an officer is entitled to qualified immunity, we ask, in the order we choose, (1) whether the alleged misconduct violated a right and (2) whether the right was clearly established at the time of the alleged

Preschooler II v. Clark County School Board of Trustees

479 F.3d 1175 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Mar 20, 2007

of clearly established law. … Government officials do not enjoy qualified immunity from civil damages if their conduct violates “clearly established constitutional or statutory rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Harlow v.

Duran v. City of Douglas

904 F.2d 1372 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jun 4, 1990

However, the Supreme Court has established a limited exception to this rule: “[A] district court’s denial of a claim of qualified immunity, to the extent that it turns on an issue of law, is an appealable ‘final decision’ … The legal issues involved in that appeal — whether Aguilar violated clearly established constitutional protections — are identical to those governing the question of Aguilar’s qualified immunity.

K. J. v. Jackson

127 F.4th 1239 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Feb 11, 2025

Defendants were not entitled to qualified immunity because the unlawfulness of their conduct was clearly established in Goss v. Lopez, 419 U.S. 565 (1975). … We hold that Defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity because the unlawfulness of their conduct was clearly established in Goss.

Julius L. Finkelstein v. Louis P. Bergna

881 F.2d 702 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Aug 2, 1989

I An official is entitled to qualified immunity when the official’s conduct “does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Harlow v. … The district court correctly concluded that Finkelstein alleged a violation of clearly established law and we accordingly affirm the denial of qualified immunity on the liberty interest claim.

Kwai Fun Wong v. United States

373 F.3d 952 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jun 25, 2004

No doubt we do over the qualified immunity issue. … Whether the Law Was Clearly Established 108 Even where a constitutional violation has occurred, whether an official asserting qualified immunity may be held liable "generally turns on the `objective legal reasonableness'

Christopher MACKINNEY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Garon NIELSEN, Dash Butler, Al Littles, and City of Berkeley, Defendants-Appellees

69 F.3d 1002 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Nov 6, 1995

Whether a defendant is entitled to qualified immunity turns on a two part inquiry: “(1) Was the law governing the official’s conduct clearly established? … Ninth Circuit law also clearly establishes the right verbally to challenge the police. In Duran v.

Bator v. Hawaii

39 F.3d 1021 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Nov 8, 1994

Qualified immunity protects state officials from section 1983 liability if their conduct does not violate “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Harlow v. … The defendants argue, however, that they are entitled to qualified immunity because the constitutional right to be free of sexual harassment was not clearly established during the period of Bator’s employment.

Edgerly v. City and County of San Francisco

495 F.3d 645 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jul 17, 2007

clearly established. … Also, because no reasonable officer could have believed, in light of clearly established law, that the search as described by Edgerly was constitutional, the Officers are not entitled to qualified immunity for the search.

Timothy Nelson v. City of Davis

685 F.3d 867 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jul 11, 2012

DISCUSSION Qualified immunity shields an official from damages in a civil suit unless the plaintiff can make the showing that the official’s actions violated a constitutional right, and that the right was “clearly established … As we have previously held, however, “[a]n officer is not entitled to qualified immunity on the ground[ ] that the law is not clearly established every time a novel method is used to inflict injury.”

Wilkinson v. Torres

610 F.3d 546 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jul 6, 2010

However, an officer using deadly force is entitled to qualified immunity, unless the law was clearly established that the use of force violated the Fourth Amendment. See Brosseau v. … The qualified immunity inquiry consists of two parts: (1) “whether the facts that a plaintiff has alleged ... or shown ... make out a violation of a constitutional right,” and (2) “whether the right at issue was ‘clearly

Drendolyn Sims v. Mike Stanton

706 F.3d 954 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Dec 3, 2012

Qualified Immunity In a claim for civil damages under § 1983, to avoid the bar of qualified immunity, the plaintiff must show that the officer violated a constitutional right and that the right was “clearly established … That Welsh leaves open the possibility for a “rare” exception to this rule does not mean that the rule was not clearly established at the time and does not change our qualified immunity analysis.

Orin v. Barclay

272 F.3d 1207 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Nov 9, 2001

Qualified immunity shields them “from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” … Orin’s First Amendment rights, in the context of this case, were clearly established.

Mattos v. Agarano

590 F.3d 1082 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jan 12, 2010

clearly established right. … The doctrine of qualified immunity shields the officers “from liability for civil damages [unless their conduct violated] clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known

Johnson v. Bay Area Rapid Transit District

724 F.3d 1159 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jul 30, 2013

The reasonable officer avoids committing acts that have been clearly established as unconstitutional—for example, handcuffing a prisoner to a fence for a long period of time—as well as other, similar acts, like handcuffing … We note that the specific quantum of force involved in using a Taser was not clearly established at the time that Pirone merely threatened its use, see Bryan v.