Case law

Hydrick v. Hunter

669 F.3d 937 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jan 12, 2012

Qualified immunity is only an immunity from a suit for money damages, and does not provide immunity from a suit seeking declaratory or injunctive relief. See Center for Bio-Ethical Reform, Inc. v. … HUNTER pleaded insufficient facts to establish “plausible” claims against the Defendants in their individual capacities and the Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity. I.

Tibbetts v. Kulongoski

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · May 29, 2009

Bryant, 502 U.S. 224, 226 (1991) (per curiam) (noting if the parameters of the right are not clearly established by case law, the official is entitled to qualified immunity). … Pelzer, 536 U.S. 730, 741 (2002), if the parameters of the right are not clearly established by case law, the official is entitled to qualified immunity.

PAULETTE SMITH V. EDWARD AGDEPPA

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Dec 30, 2022

court’s decision denying qualified immunity, which was clearly wrong). … But this standard is obviously far, far too general to create clearly established law for purposes of overcoming qualified immunity.

Moore v. Lamarque

242 F. App'x 458 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jul 3, 2007

The purpose of the qualified immunity rule is to protect from suit government officials who make reasonable mistakes in the course of duty. … Whether a right is clearly established must be undertaken in light of the specific context of the case, rather than as a broad general proposition. Id. at 201, 121 S.Ct. 2151 .

Corey Hughes v. Michael Rodriguez

31 F.4th 1211 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Apr 21, 2022

The panel further held that Officer Michael Rodriguez was not entitled to qualified immunity under § 1983 as to the claimed post-handcuff beating and dog-biting because it was clearly established law that beating a handcuffed … Qualified Immunity Qualified immunity is proper unless the plaintiff can establish that “the [officers’] specific conduct violated clearly established federal law.” Sharp v.

C. B. v. City of Sonora

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Oct 15, 2014

Because C.B.’s constitutional rights were not clearly established, the district court improperly denied qualified immunity to the officers. … qualified immunity.

Association for Los Angeles Deputy Sheriffs v. County of Los Angeles

648 F.3d 986 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Aug 12, 2011

Qualified Immunity In deciding whether to grant qualified immunity, a court must determine (a) whether the alleged facts make out a constitutional violation, and (b) whether the constitutional right at issue was clearly established … All individual defendants, however, are entitled to qualified immunity from the claims of Debs and O’Donoghue, whose right to a more substantial post-suspension hearing was not clearly established at the time of the violations

Clarence Jones v. Max Williams

791 F.3d 1023 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jun 26, 2015

The district court held that Appellees are entitled to qualified immunity from this claim. We disagree. … ’ and (2) the right was clearly established at the time of the alleged violation.”

Bishope Paiute Tribe v. County of Inyo

275 F.3d 893 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jan 4, 2002

Finally, we find that neither the District Attorney nor the Sheriff is entitled to qualified immunity because they violated clearly established law by executing a warrant outside of their jurisdiction. … On review of a denial of a motion to dismiss based on qualified immunity, we have jurisdiction only to decide if defendant’s conduct violated clearly established constitutional rights. Pelletier v.

Beck v. City of Upland

527 F.3d 853 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · May 28, 2008

Qualified Immunity Beck has met his burden to establish causation on both his First and Fourth Amendment causes of action. … See Saucier, 533 U.S. at 201, 121 S.Ct. 2151 (discussing step one of the qualified immunity inquiry) All that remains is to determine whether the pertinent law was clearly established at the time of the incidents in this

Dale Danielson v. Jay Inslee

945 F.3d 1096 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Dec 26, 2019

Second, even qualified immunity is no longer constrained by a common law tort analogy. … under § 1983,” but “instead grant immunity to any officer whose conduct ‘does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known’” (quoting Mullenix v.

Chilicky v. Schweiker

796 F.2d 1131 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Aug 12, 1986

With qualified immunity, federal officials performing discretionary functions generally are shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate "clearly established" statutory or constitutional … Nor does the present state of the record establish as a matter of law that these appellees would be shielded from liability by qualified immunity. 33 Although we agree with the district court that qualified immunity precludes

David Scott v. County of San Bernardino

903 F.3d 943 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Sep 10, 2018

Discussion In determining whether a police officer is entitled to qualified immunity, we ask (1) whether he violated a constitutional right, and (2) whether the right was “clearly established” at the time of the violation … The Officers Are Not Entitled to Qualified Immunity “Qualified immunity insulates the officers from liability unless ‘existing precedent . . . ha[s] placed the statutory or constitutional question beyond debate.’”

Actkinson v. Vargo

284 F. App'x 469 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jul 2, 2008

Vargo was entitled to qualified immunity for all claims arising after March 2002 because he did not violate Actkinson’s clearly established constitutional rights; and (3) Actkinson’s contention that Dr. … Vargo was entitled to qualified immunity.

Jose Gomez v. Campbell-Ewald Co.

768 F.3d 871 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Sep 19, 2014

Yet the Court did not establish any new theory, and although the Filarsky discussion does include a broad reading of the qualified immunity doctrine, id. at 1667–68, that doctrine is not implicated by this case. … The decision is applicable only in the context of § 1983 qualified immunity from personal tort liability. See, e.g., ibid.

Bilbrey v. Brown

738 F.2d 1462 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Aug 2, 1984

Those constitutional rights must be clearly established at the time of the challenged action. See id.; Procunier v. … clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.

Vlasak v. Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department

213 F. App'x 512 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Nov 29, 2006

Qualified immunity is appropriate unless the evidence shows that (1) the officers violated the Vlasaks’ constitutional rights, and (2) the rights violated were clearly established. See Saucier v. … Vlasak’s clearly established federal rights. See Knox v. Sw.

Groten v. California

251 F.3d 844 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jun 1, 2001

Qualified Immunity 37 The district court also determined that the state officials, in their individual capacity, were entitled to qualified immunity. … . 26 38 Government officials are given qualified immunity "insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known." 27 Although the Fourteenth

C. B. v. City of Sonora

730 F.3d 816 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Sep 12, 2013

Qualified Immunity We must also decide whether McIntosh and Prock are entitled to qualified immunity on the federal claims. … Qualified immunity analysis consists of two steps: (1) whether the facts the plaintiff alleges make out a violation of a constitutional right; and (2) whether that right was clearly established at the time the defendant acted

Michael Lacey v. Joseph Arpaio

693 F.3d 896 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Aug 29, 2012

Only when an officer’s conduct violates a clearly established constitutional right — when the officer should have known he was violating the Constitution — does he forfeit qualified immunity. … We have no difficulty concluding that, if the allegations are proven, Wilenchik violated Lacey’s clearly established First Amendment rights. Wilenchik is therefore not entitled to qualified immunity- *918 b.