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.

Angelina Nunes v. Carrie Stephens

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Dec 29, 2020

Therefore, Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity.  NUNES V. … We carefully dodge this issue today by focusing on the clearly- established-law prong of qualified immunity given the dearth of reasoning and guidance in the Gonzalez decision.

Oumar Sissoko Julie Sissoko v. Loyda R. Rocha United States of America, Oumar Sissoko, an Individual Julie Sissoko, an Individual v. Alberto R. Gonzales, Attorney General, Attorney General of the United States U.S. Immigration & Naturalization Service Doris Meissner, Commissioner, United States Ins Richard Nmi Rogers, District Director, United States Ins Four Unknown Named Officers, of the United States Immigration and Naturalization Service United States U.S. Public Health Services Joseph Chen, Md Unknown Named Employees of the United States Public Health Services, and Loyda R. Rocha, Immigration Inspector, United States Ins

440 F.3d 1145 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Mar 16, 2006

[and that] Defendant Rocha is not entitled to qualified immunity. Because he was not a newly-arriving alien, Mr. Sissoko's right not to be detained was clearly established. … Violation of a clearly established right?

Moss v. U.S. Secret Service

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jul 16, 2009

The R & R concluded that, with respect to the individual Agents, Plaintiffs had pleaded a violation of clearly established First Amendment law. … Katz, 533 U.S. 194, 201 (2001).5 If the facts alleged establish a constitutional viola- tion, the next step is to determine whether the right at issue was clearly established at the time of the violation. Robinson v.

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

Scott C. Smith v. Carol Noonan James Blodgett

992 F.2d 987 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · May 10, 1993

The court granted the State’s motion, finding that Noo-nan and Blodgett were entitled to qualified *989 immunity. … Because the court lacked a “clearly established decision regarding the parameters of prisoners’ rights to be free from [ad-seg] under the [WAC],” it absolved Noonan and Blodgett of any possible violation and held that qualified

Bryant v. Small

48 F. App'x 702 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Oct 16, 2002

MEMORANDUM ** Small and various state officers appeal the denial of their motion for summary judgment based on qualified immunity. We reverse. … We then determine whether the constitutional right was clearly established and whether a reasonable officer would have understood that he was violating that right. Saucier v.

Gorromeo v. Zachares

15 F. App'x 555 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Aug 7, 2001

Qualified Immunity We review de novo the district court’s refusal to grant qualified immunity at the pleading stage in a § 1983 action and must accept the allegations in the Plaintiffs complaint as true. … Because Plaintiff alleges conduct that is patently violative of clearly established, fundamental constitutional rights, the district court did not err in denying qualified immunity, regardless of whether Defendants relied

Levine v. City of Alameda

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · May 13, 2008

Qualified Immunity [4] The district court properly found that Flint was not per- sonally liable for violating Levine’s due process rights based on qualified immunity. … Under the defense of qualified immu- nity, a government official is immune from civil damages unless his conduct violates a clearly established right of which a reasonable person would have known. Long v.

Elder v. Holloway

951 F.2d 1112 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Dec 19, 1991

Accordingly, it ruled in Holloway's favor on qualified immunity. 5 We have no difficulty with the district court's decision on the record it was presented. … that we expect the district court to research independently the applicable law whenever qualified immunity is at issue.

Charles L. ROBINS, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. B. MEECHAM, C/O, D. Morris, SC/O, G. Cox, C/O, Defendants-Appellants

60 F.3d 1436 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jul 27, 1995

The officers filed a motion for summary judgment on the grounds that no constitutional violation had been established by Robins, and, therefore, they were entitled to qualified immunity. … II The officers contend that even if this Court finds that inmate Robins can establish an Eighth Amendment claim against them, they should still be entitled to qualified immunity because the doctrine of transferred *1442

Case v. Kitsap County Sheriff's Department

249 F.3d 921 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · May 9, 2001

In determining whether the deputies are entitled to qualified immunity, we must ask two questions: (1) Was the law governing the officer’s conduct clearly established? … Only the second prong of the qualified immunity analysis is at issue here, as the parties do not dispute that Case’s constitutional rights were “clearly established.”

Hans Bothke v. Fluor Engineers and Constructors, Inc., and W.J. Terry

713 F.2d 1405 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jan 24, 1983

“[Gjovernment officials performing discretionary functions generally are shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which … See also Harlow, 102 S.Ct. at 2738 (good faith immunity in Bivens suits applies insofar as conduct does not violate “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known”) (

Carepartners LLC, Et v. Lashway

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Sep 24, 2008

If the right was not clearly established at the time of the violation, the official is entitled to qualified immunity.6 Id. 5 We note that Pearson v. Callahan, 128 S. … Therefore, the First Amendment rights advanced by CarePartners were clearly established for the purpose of evaluating the State employees’ qualified immunity defense.

Oumar Sissoko Julie Sissoko v. Loyda R. Rocha United States of America, Oumar Sissoko, an Individual Julie Sissoko, an Individual v. Alberto R. Gonzales, Attorney General, Attorney General of the United States U.S. Immigration & Naturalization Service Doris Meissner, Commissioner, United States Ins Richard Nmi Rogers, District Director, United States Ins Four Unknown Named Officers, of the United States Immigration and Naturalization Service United States U.S. Public Health Services Joseph Chen, Md Unknown Named Employees of the United States Public Health Services, and Loyda R. Rocha, Immigration Inspector, United States Ins

412 F.3d 1021 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jun 13, 2005

[and that] Defendant Rocha is not entitled to qualified immunity. Because he was not a newly-arriving alien, Mr. Sissoko's right not to be detained was clearly established. … Violation of a clearly established right?

Sanchez v. Canales

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jul 30, 2009

It then considered whether the Officers could “conduct the probation search without sus- picion of wrongdoing,” granting immunity because it had not been clearly established “what level of suspicion, if any, was required … established one way or another—denied qualified immunity on the detention claim.

Inouye v. Kemna

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Oct 3, 2007

KEMNA 13415 Qualified immunity from civil suit is available to govern- ment officials performing discretionary functions “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory … The district court suggests that Kerr did not provide adequate notice because the court there granted qualified immunity, holding that the law was not yet clearly established.

Haley v. Donovan

250 F. App'x 202 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Sep 27, 2007

At the time in 2001 and 2002 when Haley was disciplined for refusing to cut his hair, however, it was not yet clearly established that the defendants’ conduct violated RLUIPA. … The defendants were entitled to qualified immunity. We reject Haley’s argument that qualified immunity applies only to constitutional, not statutory rights. See Harlow v.

Hopkins v. Bonvicino

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jul 16, 2009

If the right is not clearly established, then the officer is entitled to qualified immunity. … established in 2003 and the officers are not entitled to qualified immunity on the basis of that exception.

Carl Dean Swift and David Raymond Gren v. Samuel A. Lewis, Director, Carl Dean Swift, and David Raymond Gren v. Samuel A. Lewis, Director

17 F.3d 396 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Dec 10, 1993

O'Melveny & Meyers, 969 F.2d 744, 747 (9th Cir.1992). 11 We review the district court's determination of qualified immunity de novo. Lum v. … See Capoeman, 754 F.2d at 1512-13 (prison officials are immune from civil rights suit because inmate's right to be free from forced haircutting for religious reasons was not clearly established). See also Pollock v.