Case law

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.”

John v. City of El Monte

515 F.3d 936 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Feb 5, 2008

If no constitutional right would have been violated were the allegations established, there is no necessity for further inquiries concerning qualified immunity.” Id. at 200-01, 121 S.Ct. 2151 . … Even if a reasonable jury might conclude the officer lacked probable cause, the arrest was not contrary to any clearly established law, so the officer was entitled to qualified immunity from a jury trial.

Herman Resnick v. Michael Adams, Warden Mike Szafir, Administrator, Food Order and Services

348 F.3d 763 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Nov 3, 2003

right was clearly established.” … For “the next, sequential step” in the qualified immunity analysis "is to ask whether the right was clearly established.” Saucier, 533 U.S. 194 , 201, 121 S.Ct. 2151 , 150 L.Ed.2d 272 .

Donald Dunlap v. Anchorage Police Department

712 F. App'x 646 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Oct 27, 2017

clearly established at the time of Dunlap’s arrest. … Henry is entitled to qualified immunity if (1) he did not violate a constitutional right, or (2) the right was not clearly established at the time of his challenged conduct.

Robinson v. Nolte

77 F. App'x 413 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Oct 2, 2003

Even though Officer Nolte violated the defendant’s constitutional rights, he may still be protected by qualified immunity unless the constitutional rule was “clearly established” at the time of the violation. Saucier v. … We therefore reject his contention that he is shielded by qualified immunity. The decision of the district court is AFFIRMED.

Hydrick v. Hunter

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Sep 28, 2006

Defendants’ Qualified Immunity Defense Defendants also argued that the district court erred when it denied them qualified immunity. … 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

Lytle v. Wondrash

182 F.3d 1083 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jul 7, 1999

established' to preclude qualified immunity under Harlow and its progeny." … Accordingly, the constitutional right Lytle asserts was not clearly established at the time the Appellants allegedly retaliated against her, and as a result they are entitled to qualified immunity.

Mario Garcia v. County of Riverside

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Apr 8, 2016

Amendment were clearly established. … Qualified immunity applies unless the facts alleged make out (1) a violation of a constitutional right, which (2) was “clearly established” at the time of the defendant’s alleged misconduct. Pearson v.

Iris Mena v. City Of Simi Valley

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

Qualified Immunity 6 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 … force claims and assertions of qualified immunity separately.

Terrance Amons v. Dillon Tindall

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jul 15, 2021

A government official is entitled to qualified immunity unless (1) “the facts that a plaintiff has alleged or shown make out a violation of a constitutional right” and (2) “the right at issue was ‘clearly established’ … qualified immunity applies.

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.

Weldeyohannes v. State of Washington

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Dec 19, 2025

QUALIFIED IMMUNITY Qualified immunity protects government officials from liability for civil damages unless their conduct objectively violates clearly established rights. Harlow v. … impact whether the “unlawfulness . . . was clearly established at the time,” we reverse and remand the determinations of qualified immunity. 6 Id.

Flores v. JC Penney Corp.

256 F. App'x 979 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Nov 28, 2007

Although a party may generally appeal from a district court’s determination regarding qualified immunity, the United States Supreme Court has held that “a defendant, entitled to invoke a qualified immunity defense[ ] may … Saucier, 533 U.S. at 202, 121 S.Ct. 2151 (describing the second prong of the two-prong qualified immunity inquiry to determine whether the constitutional right was “clearly established”).

Karl Huber v. Christopher Coulter

684 F. App'x 623 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Mar 21, 2017

Ct. 3, 4 (2013) (police officer entitled to qualified immunity unless the conduct at issue violated a clearly established constitutional right). … The district court properly granted summary judgment on Huber’s excessive force claim because defendants’ limited use of force during the course of Huber’s arrest did not violate a clearly established right. See id.

Robert Cunningham Armand Soly, in His Individual Capacity & as Successor in Interest to His Deceased Son, Daniel Soly, & in His Capacity as a Representative of the Classes Described Fully Herein Below Betty Soly, in Her Individual Capacity & as Successor in Interest to Her Deceased Son, Daniel Soly, & in Her Capacity as a Representative of the Classes Described Fully Herein Below v. Daryl Gates, William L. Williams Richard Alarcon Richard Alatorre Hal Bernson Marvin Braude Laura Chick John Ferraro Michael Feuer Ruth Galanter Jackie Goldberg Michael Hernandez Nate Holden Mark Ridleythomas Rudy Svornich Joel Wachs Rita Walters Herbert Boeckmann Raymond Fisher Deirdre Hill Art Mattox Edith Perez Gary Greenbaum Enrique Hernandez Mary Burwell-Cooper Janet G. Bogigian Ellen M. Fawls Michael K. Fox James K. Hahn Katherine J. Hamilton Richard M. Helgeson Thomas C. Hokinson Stuart D. Hotchkiss Annette Keller Lenore Lashley Honey A. Lewis Ward G. McConnell John T. Neville James H. Pearson Robert J. Pulone Phllip Shiner Phillip J. Sugar Flora Trostler Don W. Vincent, II G. Daniel Woodard Joseph Callian Brian Davis Joseph Freia Edward Guiza James Harris Richard Spelman James Tippings John Tortorici Lawrence Winston Phillip James Wixon Gary Zerby Richard Zierenberg Tayo Popoola Jerry Brooks John D. White Dennis Conte Gregory Berg Randolph Mancini John Trundle Robert Rochhoft Daniel Koenig, Robert Cunningham Armand Soly, in His Individual Capacity & as Successor in Interest to His Deceased Son, Daniel Soly, & in His Capacity as a Representative of the Classes Described Fully Herein Below Betty Soly, in Her Individual Capacity & as Successor in Interest to Her Deceased Son, Daniel Soly, & in Her Capacity as a Representative of the Classes Described Fully Herein Below v. Daryl Gates, City of Los Angeles William L. Williams John Helms Joseph Callian Brian Davis Joseph Freia Edward Guiza James Harris Richard Spelman James Tippings John Tortorici Lawrence Winston Phillip James Wixon Gary Zerby Richard Zierenberg Jerry Brooks John D. White Gregory Berg John Trundle Robert Rochhoft Daniel Koenig, Grover Smith v. Daryl Gates, Richard Alatorre Hal Bernson Laura Chick Michael Feuer Michael Hernandez Mark Ridley-Thomas Joel Wachs Rita Walters Raymond Fisher Art Mattox, Robert Cunningham Armand Soly, in His Individual Capacity & as Successor in Interest to His Deceased Son, Daniel Soly, & in His Capacity as a Representative of the Classes Described Fully Herein Below Betty Soly, in Her Individual Capacity & as Successor in Interest to Her Deceased Son, Daniel Soly, & in Her Capacity as a Representative of the Classes Described Fully Here in Below Grover Smith G. Nicoletti D. Lyons Michael Smith v. Daryl Gates, William L. Williams John Helms Brian Davis Joseph Freia Richard Spelman Lawrence Winston Phillip James Wixon Richard Zierenberg, Grover Smith Unknown, Fifty Unknown Named All in Their Capacities as Representatives of the Classes Described Fully Here in Below Doe Alpha, in His/her Capacity as a Representative of the Class Described Fully Here in Below Roe Beta, in His/her Capacity as a Representative of the Class Described Fully Here in Below v. Daryl Gates, James K. Hahn Thomas C. Hokinson Annette Keller James H. Pearson Don W. Vincent, II G. Daniel Woodard, Grover Smith Unknown, 50 Unknown Named All in Their Individual Capacities and All in Their Capacities as Representatives of the Classes Described Fully Here in Below Doe Alpha, in His/her Capacity as a Representative of the Class Described Fully Here in Below Roe Beta, in His/her Capacity as a Representative of the Class Described Fully Here in Below v. Daniel Koenig James Tippings James Toma Charlie Bennett Rodney Rodriguez Gary Holbrook John Fruge James Harris Robert Kraus James Kilgore Angela Dumler

229 F.3d 1271 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Oct 31, 2000

In order to decide the qualified immunity claims, we must determine 1) whether non-shooting officers are entitled to qualified immunity because "jamming" does not violate clearly established law, 2) whether council members … are entitled to qualified immunity because a policy of indemnifying officers against punitive damages does not violate clearly established law, and 3) whether City attorneys are entitled to qualified immunity because recommending

Hagen v. Jabar

56 F. App'x 302 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Dec 20, 2002

The Katz Two-Prong Test In Katz, the Supreme Court announced a refined, two-part, qualified immunity *304 test. 4 A court faced with a qualified immunity claim must first ask: “Taken in the light most favorable to the party … 5 If so, the court should then move to the second prong, which asks whether the constitutional right was “clearly established.” 6 The Supreme Court said a “clearly established” right is one where a “reasonable officer” clearly

Oona, R.-S.-, a Minor, by Kate S., Her Guardian, Kate S. And Ken R. v. Patricia McCaffrey Gerald Hill Ronald Lundy

122 F.3d 1207 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Aug 25, 1997

A school counselor appealed from an order denying him qualified immunity on the ground that his alleged conduct in failing to take steps to stop sexual harassment violated clearly established rights under Title IX. … We hold only that the duty to take reasonable steps is clearly established. For the foregoing reasons, we AFFIRM the District Court’s order denying qualified immunity to the defendants.

HENRY A. v. Willden

678 F.3d 991 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · May 4, 2012

Because Tamas also held that these rights were clearly established, we reject the district court’s conclusion that qualified immunity provides an alter- native ground for dismissal. … immunity because it is not “clearly established” that the statutory provisions at issue are privately enforceable.

Lacey v. Maricopa County

649 F.3d 1118 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jun 9, 2011

Wilenchik qualified immunity. … They have thus alleged he violated a clearly established constitutional right by ordering their arrests without probable cause to do so. 5 Wilenchik is not entitled to qualified immunity as to Plaintiffs’ Fourth Amendment

Collins v. Jordan

102 F.3d 406 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Dec 4, 1996

Thus, we have jurisdiction to consider Hongisto’s legal contention that he is entitled to qualified immunity because the law was not clearly established that, given the events of the previous day, an order to ban all demonstrations … Such conduct would violate clearly established First and Fourth Amendment rights.