Case law

Janelle Perez v. City of Roseville

882 F.3d 843 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Feb 9, 2018

Clearly Established Law Although Perez’s termination violated her constitutional rights to privacy and intimate association, the defendants are entitled to qualified immunity unless those rights were clearly established … We reaffirm that, for purposes of qualified immunity, a Ninth Circuit precedent is sufficient to clearly establish the law within our circuit. See, e.g., Hughes v.

Isayeva v. Sacramento Sheriff's Department

872 F.3d 938 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Oct 2, 2017

Qualified immunity involves two questions: (1) whether the defendant violated a constitutional right, and (2) whether that right was clearly established at the time of the alleged violation. See Pearson v. … Instead, we rest our holding on the second prong of qualified immunity, that Tereschenko held no clearly established right not to be shot by Deputy Barry.

Michael Ostlund v. Robert C. Bobb, Edward J. Cooper, City of Santa Ana

825 F.2d 1371 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Aug 21, 1987

Qualified Immunity Qualified immunity shields government officials from liability for damages arising from discretionary actions if the conduct of the officials “does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … Therefore, Bobb and Cooper are not entitled to qualified immunity. See McIntosh v.

Philip W.L. Lum v. Raymond Jensen, Robert Drake, and the State of California

876 F.2d 1385 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · May 31, 1989

They asserted the defense of qualified immunity on the ground that they had violated no clearly established constitutional right. … They contend that because there was no clearly established right, they were entitled to qualified immunity as a matter of law. 1 DISCUSSION I.

Maria Morales v. Sonya Fry

873 F.3d 817 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Oct 16, 2017

Dissent by Judge Bea OPINION McKEOWN, Circuit Judge: The primary issue in this appeal is whether the “clearly established” prong of the qualified immunity analysis should b,e submitted to a jury, Following the lead of nearly … The chief issue in this appeal is whether the second prong of the qualified immunity analysis, whether the constitutional right was “clearly established,” should have been submitted to the jury. 2 We hold that the “clearly

Thompson v. Williams

320 F. App'x 678 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Mar 26, 2009

The district court also properly concluded that the defendants are entitled to qualified immunity because it was not clearly-established at the time of the violation that the defendants were required to provide him with either … Katz, 533 U.S. 194 , 200-01, 121 S.Ct. 2151 , 150 L.Ed.2d 272 (2001) (“Where the defendant seeks qualified immunity, a ruling on that issue should be made early in the proceedings so that the costs and expenses of trial are

A.C. v. Erica Cortez

34 F.4th 783 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · May 13, 2022

The district court also ruled that the individual Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity because Plaintiffs failed to show “that there was a constitutional deprivation” and, even if there were, “it was not clearly … We conclude that Gonzalez cannot be viewed as identifying a constitutional right for qualified immunity purposes or otherwise.

Mahler v. Gatten

40 F. App'x 415 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · May 10, 2002

The question properly before us, then, is whether, after drawing all reasonable factual inferences in favor of Mahler, qualified immunity was appropriately denied. … In evaluating a claim of qualified immunity, we first ask whether the facts alleged show the officer’s conduct violated a constitutional right.

Malik v. Brown

71 F.3d 724 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Nov 28, 1995

WRIGHT, Circuit Judge: In this qualified immunity case we decide whether a prisoner’s First Amendment right to use his religious name in conjunction with his committed name on outgoing mail was clearly established in 1990 … “[I]n the absence of binding precedent, a court should look to whatever decisional law is available to ascertain whether the law is clearly established” for qualified immunity purposes, Capoeman v.

Blueford v. Prunty

108 F.3d 251 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Mar 6, 1997

This court applies a two-part test to an asserted qualified immunity defense: The first question is whether the right at issue is clearly established and stated with particularity_ The second question is .whether the official … (finding no qualified immunity where cases “clearly” set out the premises of a particular clearly established right).

Christian Longoria v. Pinal County

873 F.3d 699 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Oct 10, 2017

Clearly Established Right We next proceed to the second question in assessing qualified immunity: whether the right at issue was clearly established. … Defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity because there is a material issue of fact as to whether Rankin violated Longoria’s clearly established constitutional right.

Heidi Baker Evan Baker, a Minor by and Through His Guardian Ad Litem, Heidi Baker v. I.G. Racansky Mavis Knox

887 F.2d 183 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Sep 26, 1989

“Government officials performing discretionary functions enjoy *186 qualified immunity from civil damages so long as their conduct does not violate ‘clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable … CONCLUSION We reverse the district court’s order denying Racansky’s and Knox’s motion for summary judgment on the basis of qualified immunity. The socialworkers’ alleged conduct did not violate clearly established law.

Michael Easley v. City of Riverside

890 F.3d 851 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · May 18, 2018

However, an officer using deadly force is entitled to qualified immunity, unless the law was clearly established that the use of force violated the Fourth Amendment. … CITY OF RIVERSIDE in the case law concerning how distinguishable a case may be on its facts before it cannot be construed as clearly established law for qualified-immunity purposes.

D'Angelo v. Crofts

294 F. App'x 254 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Sep 19, 2008

D’Angelo’s reliance on the advice of non-defendants not to bother to take any actions indicative of an intent to establish residency because any reclassification petition would be futile does not establish unconstitutional … Because Appellants have not shown that the MUS has applied an irrebuttable presumption of non-residency, we do not reach the issue of qualified immunity. AFFIRMED.

Stephen Sjurset v. Charles Button

810 F.3d 609 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Dec 4, 2015

The law of qualified immunity Qualified immunity “protects government officials from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which … This is because in Boyd we ultimately concluded that—despite the existence of a constitutional violation—the officers were entitled to qualified immunity because no clearly established law specifically precluded the use of

Community House, Inc. v. City of Boise, Idaho

623 F.3d 945 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Oct 6, 2010

reasonable and does not violate clearly-established federal rights. … ”; and (2) whether that right was clearly established.

Zachary Rosenbaum v. City of San Jose

107 F.4th 919 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jul 11, 2024

CITY OF SAN JOSE SUMMARY * Excessive Force/Qualified Immunity/Police Dogs The panel affirmed the district court’s denial of qualified immunity to City of San Jose police officers in … Accordingly, we affirm the denial of qualified immunity. I.

Rosenbaum v. Washoe County

654 F.3d 1001 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Nov 30, 2011

, whether that right was clearly established at the time of the event. … of the action, assessed in light of the legal rules that were clearly established at the time it was taken.”

Motley v. Parks

383 F.3d 1058 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Sep 21, 2004

Violation of Clearly Established Law: Unconstitutional Search The officers assert that because they reasonably believed they were conducting a parole search of Jamerson’s residence, they are entitled to qualified immunity … The difference is merely factual, and the qualified immunity standard does not require that a constitutional principle be clearly established in every factual context before officers can be held liable for violating it.

Kenneth Andrew FRIEDMAN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Carroll SOUTH; Henry Risley, Warden; Lee Baker; Bob Williams, Defendants-Appellees

92 F.3d 989 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Aug 20, 1996

The statute cannot be applied retroactively to make the law clear in such a way as to create liability for the prison officials, who are entitled to qualified immunity because the law was not clear in 1985. … Accordingly, the defendants are entitled to qualified immuni *990 ty. Anderson v. Creighton, 483 U.S. 635, 639 , 107 S.Ct. 3034, 3038-39 , 97 L.Ed.2d 523 (1987).