Case law

Norse v. City of Santa Cruz

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Nov 3, 2009

was error to grant qualified immunity to defendants as a matter of law. … I would reverse the grant of qualified immunity as to the 2002 meeting and remand this claim for trial.

Lily Keyser Maria Sofia Robledo Richard M. Cisneros v. Sacramento City Unified School District, a Public Entity and James Sweeney

238 F.3d 1132 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Feb 7, 2001

Second, the district court concluded that Sweeney was entitled to qualified immunity because it was not clearly established that it was illegal to retaliate against Key-ser, Robledo, and Cisneros for bringing charges of misuse … Ill With respect to the merits, Keyser, Robledo, and Cisneros challenge the conclusion that Sweeney has qualified immunity from suit due to the fact that it was not clearly established in 1997 that it is illegal to retaliate

Miller v. Placer County

84 F. App'x 973 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jan 2, 2004

The deputies argued that they were entitled to qualified immunity against Penny’s and Corinne’s claims because in 1999, at the time of this incident, the law was not clearly established that pointing a gun alone can amount … The district court properly denied qualified immunity for Penny’s and Corinne’s claims in this case.

Porter v. Osborn

546 F.3d 1131 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Oct 20, 2008

We therefore reverse the court’s denial of qualified immunity and remand for further proceedings. … immunity, finding that the Porters had shown enough to establish the violation of a clearly established constitutional right.

Brooks v. City of Seattle

599 F.3d 1018 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Mar 26, 2010

Qualified immunity entitles the Officers “not to stand trial or face the other burdens of litigation” on the § 1983 claim, provided their conduct did not violate a clearly established federal right. Mitchell v. … The qualified immunity inquiry asks two questions: (1) was there a violation of a constitutional right, and, if so, then (2) was the right at issue “clearly established” such that it would have been clear to a reasonable

Christopher Marino v. Ocwen Loan Servicing LLC

978 F.3d 669 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Oct 20, 2020

In Saucier, the Court employed a two-step approach to decide the qualified immunity issue, first deciding whether an official’s conduct violated a constitutional right and then whether that right was clearly established. … Saucier was dealing with what constitutional rights existed and were clearly established enough to deprive state actors of Qualified Immunity as a defense. Saucier, 533 U.S. at 197.

Michael Easley v. City of Riverside

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Apr 3, 2019

An officer is entitled to qualified immunity if his conduct did not violate clearly established law. See Ashcroft v. al-Kidd, 563 U.S. 731, 735 (2011). … 2011 the Supreme Court has disagreed with us six times because we incorrectly determined that the law was clearly established in the qualified immunity context.

Gerald Napouk v. Lvmpd

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Dec 10, 2024

Accordingly, the officers’ conduct did not violate the Fourth Amendment, but even if it did, they would still be entitled to qualified immunity because they did not violate clearly established law. … LVMPD 25 qualified immunity because they did not violate clearly established law.

Long v. City and County of Honolulu

511 F.3d 901 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Dec 21, 2007

The district court’s decision on qualified immunity is also reviewed de novo. Id. … Qualified Immunity The defense of qualified immunity “shields government officials performing discretionary functions from liability for civil damages ‘insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory

Meyer v. Fidelity Savings

944 F.2d 562 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Sep 13, 1991

The issue of qualified immunity should not have been submitted to the jury because Pattullo violated no clearly established law. See Schwartzman v. … Valenzuela, 846 F.2d 1209, 1211 (9th Cir.1988) (question of clearly established right is question of law). Thus, any error in the qualified immunity instruction was harmless. V.

John Louis Lalonde v. County of Riverside, Robert Moquin, and Jason Horton, Opinion

204 F.3d 947 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Feb 25, 2000

The defendants are entitled to qualified immunity, unless a reasonable officer would have known that the conduct at issue was unlawful under clearly established law. See Anderson v. … A reasonable officer would have known that such was the clearly established law. II.

Schneider v. California Department of Corrections

345 F.3d 716 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Sep 29, 2003

We must answer two questions when deciding whether the prison officials are entitled to qualified immunity: “(1) Was the law governing the state official's conduct clearly established? … "If the law did not put the [officials] on notice that [their] conduct would be clearly unlawful, summary judgment based on qualified immunity is appropriate.” Id.

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. 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.

Davis v. City of Las Vegas

478 F.3d 1048 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Feb 27, 2007

to qualified immunity. … immunity if the right violated was not “clearly established.”

Inouye v. Kemna

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Sep 7, 2007

KEMNA Qualified immunity from civil suit is available to govern- ment officials performing discretionary functions “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which … 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.

Newell v. Sauser

64 F.3d 1416 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Sep 11, 1995

The qualified immunity doctrine protects government officials from liability for civil damages “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person … In determining whether an official is entitled to qualified immunity, we (1) identify the specific right allegedly violated; (2) determine whether the right was “clearly established;” and (3) determine whether a reasonable

Rachel Scanlon v. County of Los Angeles

92 F.4th 781 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Feb 2, 2024

We also observe that the defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity. The right to be free from judicial deception was clearly established prior to 2016 and so before the events of this case. … Nonetheless, we concluded that this right had not been clearly established at the time of Camreta’s investigation and so granted qualified immunity to him and the deputy. Id. at 1033.

Galen v. County of Los Angeles

477 F.3d 652 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jan 18, 2007

Qualified Immunity Sergeant Barrier and Deputy Heinrich’s assertion of quali- fied immunity requires us to answer two questions: First, do the facts alleged show that Sergeant Barrier and Deputy Hein- rich’s conduct violated … Because the law regarding excessive bail and peace officers’ liability for recommending bail enhancements was not clearly established, Sergeant Barrier and Deputy Heinrich are entitled to qualified immunity.

Bruce v. Ylst

351 F.3d 1283 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Dec 10, 2003

We hold that as to the retaliation claim, defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity. 32 "Government officials enjoy qualified immunity from civil damages unless their conduct violates `clearly established statutory … As this court pointed out in Pratt, "the prohibition against retaliatory punishment is `clearly established law' in the Ninth Circuit, for qualified immunity purposes." 65 F.3d at 806 (citing Schroeder v.

Price v. Akaka

3 F.3d 1220 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Nov 2, 1993

Qualified Immunity 27 As the Supreme Court stated in Harlow v. … 31 First of all, an Attorney General's opinion cannot by itself establish "clearly established law."