Case law

Figueroa v. United States

7 F.3d 1405 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Oct 19, 1993

The individual Defendants moved for dismissal of the constitutional tort claim on the ground of qualified immunity. … Also faced with a qualified immunity defense, Wood concluded that in 1984 the Ninth Cir-euit would have followed White, id. at 594 , and that by 1984 “passengers of arrested drivers” had a clearly established substantive

Rodis v. City and County Sf

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Mar 9, 2009

demonstrated a violation of clearly established law.” … The arrest, therefore, was not clearly established as unlawful. CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, we conclude that Defendants were entitled to qualified immunity.

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 .

Mena v. City of Simi Valley

226 F.3d 1031 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Sep 22, 2000

In deciding whether Defendants are entitled as a matter of law to qualified immunity, we must accept the facts in the light most favorable to the Plaintiffs and then determine whether, in light of clearly established principles … Defendants maintain, however, that' they are entitled to qualified immunity because the officers reasonably could have believed that their conduct was lawful under the clearly established law. A.

Gerald Albers v. Harold Whitley

743 F.2d 1372 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Oct 1, 1984

QUALIFIED IMMUNITY One final note should be taken of the qualified immunity defense claim. Under Harlow v. … Similarly, deliberate indifference to Albers’ right to be free of cruel and unusual punishment would violate a right “clearly established at the time of the conduct at issue.” Davis v.

Drummond ex rel. Drummond v. City of Anaheim

343 F.3d 1052 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Sep 10, 2003

The Constitutional Violation Was Clearly Established Because we hold that Drummond’s factual allegations, if true, establish a constitutional violation, we must proceed to the second step in the qualified immunity analysis … immunity: notwithstanding the absence of direct precedent, the law may be, as it was here, clearly established.

Gary Blankenhorn v. City of Orange Andy Romero Dung Nguyen Garrett Ross Tamara South Gray, Sergeant Montano, Officer Kayano, Officer Roman, Officer

485 F.3d 463 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · May 8, 2007

“Whether a right is ‘clearly established’ for purposes of qualified immunity is an inquiry that ‘must be undertaken in light of the specific context of the case, not as a broad general proposition.’ … Saucier's requirement that the plaintiffs asserted right be clearly established “does not mean that the very action at issue must have been held unlawful before qualified immunity is shed.” Wall v.

Jones v. City of North Las Vegas

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Sep 8, 2025

Because defendants lacked an exigent circumstance to search plaintiffs’ yard under clearly established law at the time of the incident, they were not entitled to qualified immunity. … 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 at the

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.

Resnick v. Adams

317 F.3d 1056 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jan 27, 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 .

Ernest S. Little v. City of Seattle John Doe Jane Doe, and David Paul

863 F.2d 681 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Feb 2, 1989

The rule as to qualified immunity is that “government officials performing discretionary functions, generally are shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory … Because Little has not shown any violation of a clearly established constitutional right, Paul is not liable. 3.

Donald D. Hemphill Danny Kay Howard Donald Booth v. Lawrence Kincheloe, Warden Amos Reed, Ronald Guilmet Jeffrey Heath v. W.L. Kautzky Lawrence Kincheloe Amos Reed, Belvin L. Carter George Johnson v. W.L. Kautzky Lawrence Kincheloe, Warden Booth Gardner Chase Riveland, Terrence L. Wetmore v. Booth Gardner Walter L. Kautzky Lawrence Kincheloe, Warden Amos Reed James Spaulding, Superintendent Richard Zabor

987 F.2d 589 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jun 15, 1993

Racansky, 887 F.2d 183, 185 (9th Cir.1989). 10 Prison officials who have implemented a digital rectal probe policy are entitled to qualified immunity if, in light of the clearly established law at the time, a reasonable official … To determine whether this standard is satisfied, we recently established a two-part analysis: "1) Was the law governing the official's conduct clearly established?

Preston Seidner v. Jonathan De Vries

39 F.4th 591 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jun 30, 2022

DE VRIES Qualified immunity shields a police officer from civil damages under Section 1983 “unless the officer[] violated a clearly established constitutional right.” Monzon v. … Thus, in deciding whether qualified immunity applies, we ask two questions: (1) did the officer violate a constitutional right, and (2) was that right “clearly established at the time of the events at issue”? Id.

Hydrick v. Demorales

449 F.3d 978 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · May 31, 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

Marsh v. County of San Diego

680 F.3d 1148 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · May 29, 2012

Qualified Immunity [18] Even if Coulter violated Marsh’s constitutional rights under color of state law, he’s entitled to qualified immunity because the right wasn’t “clearly established” at the time of his conduct. … Although the Catsouras court found a state privacy right over death images, it found no clearly established federal right and dismissed the section 1983 claim on qualified immunity grounds. 181 Cal.

Lazy Y Ranch Ltd. v. Behrens

546 F.3d 580 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Sep 26, 2008

Clearly Established Right The second inquiry in a qualified immunity case is whether the constitutional violation the plaintiff has alleged is clearly established. See Scott, 127 S.Ct. at 1774 . … This principle is clearly established, see, e.g., Hydrick v. Hunter, 500 F.3d 978, 999 (9th Cir.2007), so Defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity. *593 VI.

Saved Magazine v. Spokane Police Department

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Dec 9, 2021

The panel held that Officer Doe was entitled to qualified immunity under the second prong of the qualified immunity analysis, which asks whether the constitutional right was clearly established at the time of defendant’s … Plaintiffs first argue that the district court erred in concluding that Officer Doe was entitled to qualified immunity because the law underpinning the alleged First Amendment violation was clearly established.

Larry Wheaton v. Freddye Webb-Petett, Administrator, Adult and Family Services Division of the State of Oregon

931 F.2d 613 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · May 1, 1991

Qualified immunity shields public employees who perform discretionary functions from liability for civil damages where “their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable … While relevant, this alone does not establish qualified immunity. Anderson, 483 U.S. at 640 , 107 S.Ct. at 3039 .

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. … Robbins' determination that probable cause existed to sign the certificate was reasonable under the circumstances and he did not violate clearly established law."

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