Case law

Mabe v. San Bernardino County

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

Whether governing law was clearly established is a legal determination reviewed de novo. Mitchell v. Forsyth, 472 U.S. 511, 528 , 105 S.Ct. 2806 , 86 L.Ed.2d 411 (1985) (qualified immunity). … 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.

Moss v. United States Secret Service

675 F.3d 1213 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Apr 9, 2012

Qualified Immunity Framework [1] “[Q]ualified immunity protects government officials ‘from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights … The second prong assesses the objective reasonableness of the official’s conduct in light of the decisional law at the time: A right is clearly established for purposes of qualified immunity only where the contours of the

Hervey v. Estes

65 F.3d 784 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Sep 12, 1995

In sum, a plaintiff can only survive summary judgment on a defense claim of qualified immunity if the plaintiff can both establish a substantial showing of a deliberate falsehood or reckless disregard and establish that, … Qualified immunity was not properly granted on this claim.

Fuller v. M.G. Jewelry

950 F.2d 1437 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Dec 11, 1991

The court found that even if no probable cause existed for the search, the officers were entitled to qualified immunity because it was not clearly established at the time of arrest that such a search would be unconstitutional … Even absent probable cause, qualified immunity is available if a reasonable police officer could have believed that his or her conduct was lawful, in light of clearly established law and the information the searching officers

Ganwich v. Knapp

319 F.3d 1115 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Feb 11, 2003

Nevertheless, the plaintiffs argue that we lack jurisdiction to review the denial of qualified immunity because the district court’s ruling occurred before the completion of discovery and expressly left the qualified immunity … immunity analysis: We ask whether the right was “clearly established.”

Tony Mark v. Paul Groff

521 F.2d 1376 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Sep 2, 1975

A remand for further proceedings is necessary because “the scope of that immunity will necessarily be related to facts as yet not established” below. Scheuer, supra, 416 U.S. at 243 , 94 S.Ct. at 1689 . … Matteo for determining when absolute immunity applies, is also relevant to a determination of qualified immunity.

Mark Martin v. City of Oceanside Shawn Kelly Benjamin Ekeland

360 F.3d 1078 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Mar 11, 2004

Katz, the Supreme Court established a two-part analysis for determining whether qualified immunity attaches to specific circumstances. 533 U.S. 194 , 201, 121 S.Ct. 2151 , 150 L.Ed.2d 272 (2001). … If the answer to this question is “no,” then the officers are entitled to qualified immunity. If the answer is “yes,” however, then we must ask whether that right was clearly established. Id. A.

Tennison v. City and County of San Francisco

548 F.3d 1293 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Dec 8, 2008

The Inspectors also argue that they are entitled to qualified immunity. … If no constitutional right would have been violated were the allegations established, there is no necessity for further inquiries concerning qualified immunity.

Araceli Rodriguez v. Lonnie Swartz

899 F.3d 719 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Aug 7, 2018

QUALIFIED IMMUNITY Qualified immunity protects public officials “from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established . . . constitutional rights of which 2 Rodriguez … Instead, Swartz lacks immunity only if J.A.’s Fourth Amendment right was “clearly established” when he was shot and killed.40 A right is “clearly established” when it is “sufficiently clear that every reasonable official

May v. Baldwin

109 F.3d 557 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Mar 19, 1997

The affirmative defense of qualified immunity shields public officials performing discretionary functions from liability for civil damages under § 1983 “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory … CONCLUSION We find that May’s right to avoid loosening his dreadlocks was not clearly established at the time of the alleged violations of RFRA, and the prison officials are entitled to qualified immunity from damages.

Pelletier v. Federal Home Loan Bank of San Francisco

130 F.3d 429 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Dec 3, 1997

The qualified immunity defense shields government agents’ liability for civil damages “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have … Henderson, 940 F.2d 465, 475 (9th Cir.1991), it is in any event not clearly established.

Richard Vos v. City of Newport Beach

892 F.3d 1024 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jun 11, 2018

The panel nevertheless held that the defendant officers were entitled to qualified immunity on the § 1983 claims because existing precedent did not clearly establish, beyond debate, that the officers’ acted unreasonably under … “In determining whether an officer is entitled to qualified immunity, we consider (1) whether there has been a violation of a constitutional right; and (2) whether that right was clearly established at the time of the officer

Rodis v. City and County of San Francisco

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Aug 28, 2007

The court also found Barry and Liddicoet not entitled to qualified immunity because the illegality of the arrest was clearly established at the time. II. DISCUSSION A. … Therefore, I cannot join in the majority’s conclusion that such a require- ment was clearly established prior to today, and I would grant the officers qualified immunity. What happened to Mr.

Wittman v. Saenz

108 F. App'x 548 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Sep 7, 2004

Because Wittman’s constitutional claim was not clearly established, the County counsel are entitled to qualified immunity. See Jeffers, 267 F.3d at 910 . … Finally, we agree that the social worker supervisors and social workers 8 are entitled to qualified immunity, at the very least, because Wittman’s constitutional claim was not clearly established such that a reasonable social

Harveston v. Cunningham

216 F. App'x 682 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jan 5, 2007

Qualified immunity is appropriate unless the evidence shows that (1) the officers violated Harveston’s constitutional rights, and (2) the rights violated were clearly established. See Saucier v. … Thus, because the right was not clearly established, Officer Cunningham is entitled to qualified immunity and summary judgment was proper on the excessive force claim for use of the pepper spray.

Foster v. Runnels

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Feb 5, 2009

The District Court granted summary judgment on the grounds that Cole was entitled to qualified immunity because the con- stitutional right was not clearly established at the time of the alleged violation such that it would … RUNNELS was entitled to qualified immunity because the constitutional right in question was not clearly established.

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 31 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.

97 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 9047, 97 Daily Journal D.A.R. 14,611 Robert J. Pelletier v. Federal Home Loan Bank of San Francisco United States of America, John W. Behrens

130 F.3d 429 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Dec 3, 1997

The qualified immunity defense shields government agents' liability for civil damages "insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have … Behrens may, however, appeal the district court's implicit legal determination that the right Behrens allegedly infringed was "clearly established."

Krl, a California General Partnership Roland Womack Nadine Womack Larry Dwight Womack Luke Womack Renee Womack v. Russell Moore David J. Irey Amador County State of California, and Todd D. Riebe Ron Hall, Krl, a California General Partnership Roland Womack Nadine Womack Larry Dwight Womack Luke Womack Renee Womack v. Russell Moore Todd D. Riebe Ron Hall Amador County State of California, and David J. Irey

384 F.3d 1105 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Sep 27, 2004

If yes, "the next, sequential step is to ask whether the right was clearly established." … The district court should have engaged in a qualified immunity analysis with respect to this claim because it could have been resolved as a matter of law. 43 It is clearly established that judicial deception may not be employed

Beaver v. City of Federal Way

301 F. App'x 704 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Nov 25, 2008

*705 MEMORANDUM ** The district court found that City of Federal Way police officers Douglas Laird and Heather Castro were entitled to qualified immunity for tasing appellant Ricky Beaver five times during his arrest on August … An officer is entitled to qualified immunity when his or her conduct is not a violation of an arrestee’s clearly established rights. Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 818 , 102 S.Ct. 2727 , 73 L.Ed.2d 396 (1982).