Case law

Jensen v. Lane County

222 F.3d 570 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Aug 23, 2000

Robbins violated a clearly established constitutional or statutory right of which a reasonable person would have known. See Harlow, 457 U.S. at 818 , 102 S.Ct. 2727 . … Robbins’ determination that probable cause existed to sign the certificate was reasonable under the circumstances and he did not violate clearly established law.”

April Sabbe v. Washington Cnty Bd of Comm'rs

84 F.4th 807 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Oct 17, 2023

“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.” White v. … I would hold that Defendants’ entry onto Sabbe’s property was a clearly established violation of the Fourth Amendment, as to which Defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity.

Surie Alexander v. Dau Nguyen

78 F.4th 1140 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Aug 25, 2023

Nguyen was entitled to qualified immunity because it was not clearly established that his actions violated the Constitution. II. … Analysis A government official is entitled to qualified immunity “unless the plaintiff raises a genuine issue of fact showing (1) ‘a violation of a constitutional right,’ and (2) that the right was ‘clearly established

96 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 627, 96 Daily Journal D.A.R. 982 Brenda Lynne Carnell v. Cheryl Grimm, Chris Sueo, Yamaguchi, Susan Dowsett, Jerry Yoshit Kujiuji, Officer R. Noguchi, Officer P. Thorton, Officer C.K. Flynn, City and County of Honolulu, Officer Earl Penaroza, and John Does 1-10

74 F.3d 977 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jan 30, 1996

When a law enforcement officer asserts qualified immunity from liability, "the district court must determine whether, in light of clearly established principles governing the conduct in question, the officer objectively could … V. 12 The second step of analysis for a qualified immunity determination is whether under the clearly established law a reasonable officer could have believed that his conduct was lawful. Act Up!

Carol George v. Jarrett Morris

724 F.3d 1191 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jul 30, 2013

Concluding that the deputies had not argued for its application, the court did not address the second prong of qualified immunity — the clearly established inquiry. … Our decision on the clearly established issue does not prevent the deputies from appropriately raising the second prong of qualified immunity at a subsequent stage in the litigation, such as in a Rule 50 motion for judgment

Allen v. Sakai

48 F.3d 1082 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Mar 1, 1995

established constitutional rights, defeating defendants' claims to qualified immunity. … established constitutional rights, defeating defendants' claims to qualified immunity.

Stein v. Ryan

662 F.3d 1114 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Nov 18, 2011

. § 1983, the district court concluded that they were protected by qualified immunity. … Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 818 (1982) (qualified immunity applies if offi- cial’s conduct “does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known”).

Mabe v. San Bernardino County

237 F.3d 1101 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jan 24, 2001

Zolin, 812 F.2d 1103 (9th Cir. 1987). 14 Whether governing law was clearly established is a legal determination reviewed de novo. Mitchell v. Forsyth, 472 U.S. 511, 528 (1985) (qualified immunity). … Arizona, 437 U.S. 385, 393 (1978)). 23 The first prong of the qualified immunity test focuses on whether the law governing Perry's removal of MD from the Mabe home was clearly established.

Charles Barnard v. Greg Theobald

721 F.3d 1069 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jul 1, 2013

Once more, the Officers argued that they were entitled to qualified immunity. … Qualified Immunity 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

Friedman v. Boucher

568 F.3d 1119 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jun 23, 2009

Because Friedman’s rights were clearly established at the time that Defendants took the sample, the Defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity. … Because the forcible taking of the DNA sample violated Friedman’s clearly established constitutional rights, neither Boucher nor Luzaich .is entitled to qualified immunity.

Millender v. County of Los Angeles

564 F.3d 1143 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · May 6, 2009

If the answer to the first inquiry is yes, the second inquiry is whether the right was clearly established: in other words, “whether it would be clear to a reasonable officer that his conduct was unlawful in the situation … The district court’s denial of qualified immunity is VACATED, and the case is REMANDED with instructions to grant Detective Messerschmidt and Sergeant Lawrence qualified immunity on the challenged scope of the warrant. .

Guerra v. Sutton

783 F.2d 1371 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Feb 28, 1986

IMMUNITY OF THE FEDERAL DEFENDANTS A federal officer is entitled to qualified immunity for actions taken in the course of duty unless the officer’s conduct violated “clearly established” law. Harlow v. … We construe the district court’s dismissal of the FTCA claim as based on the same qualified immunity grounds.

Eng v. County of La

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jan 14, 2009

If a plaintiff’s constitutional rights were not clearly established at the time of the violation, then qualified immunity should be granted. 2. Whether Eng’s Rights Were Clearly Established a. … of which is rarely clear; thus “the law regarding [First Amendment retaliation] claims will rarely, if ever, be sufficiently ‘clearly established’ to preclude qualified immunity.”

Rodney FLETCHER, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Lynne KALINA, Defendant-Appellant

93 F.3d 653 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Aug 22, 1996

The district court explicitly noted that qualified immunity was a question of fact in this case. … We emphasize that Kalina may be able to avoid liability by showing at trial that her conduct did not violate a clearly established right of which a reasonable person would have known. See Harlow v.

White v. Pierce County

797 F.2d 812 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Aug 20, 1986

Qualified Immunity 13 Government officials performing discretionary functions are shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights … The rights which plaintiffs assert in this case are clearly established.

Estate of Daniel Hernandez v. City of Los Angeles

96 F.4th 1209 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Mar 21, 2024

CITY OF LOS ANGELES qualified immunity because McBride did not violate clearly established law. … Because McBride did not violate clearly established law in firing her third volley of shots, we conclude that she is entitled to qualified immunity.

Bollinger v. Oregon State Board of Parole & Post-Prison Supervision

86 F. App'x 259 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Dec 22, 2003

We review de novo both a district court’s decision on qualified immunity, and its determination of whether a plaintiffs rights were clearly established at the time of the alleged violation. Elder v. … We proceed to whether Bollinger’s rights were clearly established because the Board has conceded for purposes of its motion to dismiss that Bollinger has alleged a violation of his constitutional rights. See Saucier v.

Wood v. Sunn

865 F.2d 982 · 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

Krug v. Lutz

329 F.3d 692 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · May 14, 2003

Qualified Immunity 16 Krug, for his part, challenges the district court's conclusion that the ADOC officials are entitled to qualified immunity from his claim for damages. … We therefore move on: 17 [T]he next, sequential step is to ask whether the right was clearly established.

Kee v. Mersch

297 F. App'x 615 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Oct 23, 2008

Tichenor are entitled to qualified immunity. Qualified immunity is “ ‘an entitlement not to stand trial or face the other burdens of litigation.’ ” Saucier v. … “[I]f a violation could be made out on a favorable view of the parties’ submissions, the next, sequential step is to ask whether the right was clearly established.” Id.