Case law

Sloman v. Tadlock

21 F.3d 1462 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Apr 14, 1994

Qualified Immunity 9 Because many of the relevant facts were in dispute, the district court submitted the qualified immunity determination to the jury. 3 The jury rejected Hale's claim to qualified immunity. … The determination of qualified immunity 11 necessitates three inquiries: (1) the identification of the specific right allegedly violated; (2) the determination of whether that right was so "clearly established" as to alert

Doe ex rel. Doe v. Petaluma City School District

54 F.3d 1447 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · May 12, 1995

“On review of a denial of qualified immunity, ‘[w]e have jurisdiction only to decide if defendant’s conduct violated ... clearly established [law].’ ” Pelletier v. … “[S]pecifie binding precedent is not required to show that a right is clearly established for qualified immunity purposes.” Maraziti, 953 F.2d at 525 , quoting Brady v.

Estate of Decedent Lolomania Soakai v. Abdelaziz

137 F.4th 969 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · May 16, 2025

Because the law was clearly established before the date of the car chase that defendants’ conduct was unconstitutional, defendants were not entitled to qualified immunity. … While creative, this doesn’t prove clearly established law. We should have granted qualified immunity to the Officers on this new substantive due process claim.

Fogel v. Collins

531 F.3d 824 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jun 27, 2008

Police officers performing discretionary functions within the scope of their employment have qualified immunity from civil suit as long as “their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights … A two-step analysis guides our qualified immunity inquiry.

LSO, Ltd. v. Stroh

205 F.3d 1146 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Mar 6, 2000

Once the defense of qualified immunity is raised by the defendant, the plaintiff bears the burden of showing that the rights allegedly violated were “clearly established.” See Shoshone-Bannock Tribes v. … Thus, LSO’s right was “clearly established.” 3.

Motley v. Parks

432 F.3d 1072 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Dec 29, 2005

If the right was hot clearly established, the qualified immunity doctrine shields the officer from further litigation. Id. … Qualified Immunity Having determined that Motley’s factual allegations, if true, establish a constitutional violation, we turn our attention to evaluating whether the law was clearly established such that a reasonable officer

Angel Mendez v. County of Los Angeles

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Mar 2, 2016

The court also held that its conclusions in each respect were supported by clearly established law and that the officers were not entitled to qualified immunity. … In the absence of clearly established law that squarely governs the situation here, qualified immunity is appropriate on the knock-and-announce claim. Id. at 309.

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.

Schroeder v. Kaplan

60 F.3d 834 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jul 7, 1995

Sec. 1291 , and we affirm. 3 Government officials are entitled to qualified immunity where the right which the officials have allegedly violated was not clearly established at the time the conduct occurred such that a reasonable … the district court properly granted defendants qualified immunity on this claim.

Diruzza v. County of Tehama

206 F.3d 1304 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Mar 21, 2000

The district court further held, in the alternative, that individual defendants Heard and Floyd were entitled to qualified immunity because they had not violated a clearly established right. … For purposes of determining qualified immunity, the law must be clearly established at the time of the defendant’s acts. In this case, the alleged retaliation occurred in 1995.

Greene v. Camreta

588 F.3d 1011 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Dec 10, 2009

If a government official “could ... have reasonably but mistakenly believed that his or her conduct did not violate a clearly established constitutional right,” he is entitled to qualified immunity. Jackson v. … Because Camreta’s alleged misrepresentation in support of his request for a protective custody order — again, assuming it occurred — violated the Greenes’ clearly established rights, he is not entitled to qualified immunity

Than Orn v. City of Tacoma

949 F.3d 1167 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Feb 3, 2020

Turning to the second step of the qualified immunity analysis, the panel held that plaintiff’s right to be free from the use of excessive force was clearly established at the time of the shooting. … B We turn next to the second step of the qualified immunity analysis, which asks whether Orn’s right to be free from the use of excessive force was clearly established at the time of the shooting.

Jose Chavez v. James Ziglar

683 F.3d 1102 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jun 20, 2012

intertwined with” and “directly implicated by” the issue of qualified immunity. … Accordingly, we have jurisdiction to review both whether the supervisory defendants have qualified immunity — which turns on legal issues such as whether they allegedly violated “clearly established” rights, Behrens v.

Mena v. City of Simi Valley

332 F.3d 1255 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jun 23, 2003

They argue that the district court erred in ruling that they are not entitled to qualified immunity. … Qualified Immunity Muehler and Brill argue' that they should be shielded from liability to Mena under the doctrine of qualified immunity. 2 “Qualified immunity is an entitlement not to stand trial or face the other burdens

Jeffers v. Gomez

240 F.3d 845 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Feb 20, 2001

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? … The district court correctly determined that the first prong of the qualified immunity inquiry—whether the law governing Appellants’ conduct was clearly established—had been met.

Dean v. Munch

4 F. App'x 380 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Feb 14, 2001

To be considered “clearly established” for the purposes of qualified immunity analysis, “[t]he contours of the right must be sufficiently clear that a reasonable official would understand that what he is doing violates that … A claim of immunity under the Idaho Tort Claims Act is not an immunity from suit, as qualified and absolute immunity are.

Wood v. Sunn

852 F.2d 1205 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jul 27, 1988

The Supreme Court decided an entirely different issue in this case: precisely what must be “clearly established” for a law enforcement officer to be entitled to summary judgment on the issue of qualified immunity in the context … of a warrant-less search. 4 The Supreme Court held that qualified immunity is available if a reasonable police officer could have believed that the search was justified, in light of clearly established law and the information

Johnson v. County of Los Angeles

340 F.3d 787 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Aug 15, 2003

City of Bremerton, 268 F.3d 646, 650 (9th Cir.2001). 1 I In Saucier, the Supreme Court established a two-step evaluation of qualified immunity. … His use of force was objectively reasonable and he is entitled to qualified immunity.

Rudi Acosta Alma Acosta v. City and County of San Francisco Daniel Yawczak

83 F.3d 1143 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jun 18, 1996

Qualified Immunity Determining whether a law enforcement officer is entitled to qualified immunity involves the .consideration of two questions: “1) Was the law governing the officer’s conduct clearly established? … hold that Yawczak is not entitled to qualified immunity.

Kwai Fun Wong v. United States

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

The qualified immunity defense “ ‘shield[s] [government agents] from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person … Whether the Law Was Clearly Established Even where a constitutional violation has occurred, whether an official asserting qualified immunity may be held liable “generally turns on the ‘objective legal reasonableness’ of the