-
652 F. App'x 497 Ninth Circuit June 6, 2016 No. 14-35147Not cited Unpublished
We reverse the district court’s denial of qualified immunity and remand for further proceedings, The purported right to be free from a retaliatory arrest that is otherwise supported by probable cause was not clearly established in
established for purposes of qualified immunity.
Under the clearly established prong of qualified immunity, “[t]he dispositive question is-‘whether the violative nature of particular conduct is clearly established.’ ” Mullenix v.
-
117 F.3d 1425 Ninth Circuit July 7, 1997 No. 96-15842Cited by 2 Unpublished
established right.
Following our remand, the officers moved for summary judgment, arguing that they were entitled to qualified immunity. The district court entered summary judgment in their favor.
To be clearly established for qualified immunity purposes, the contours of the asserted right must be "sufficiently clear that a reasonable official would understand that what he is doing violates that right." Camarillo v.
-
685 F. App'x 631 Ninth Circuit March 30, 2017 No. 14-35682Not cited Unpublished
We reverse the district court’s decision denying qualified immunity and hold that Krueger is entitled to qualified immunity because the law was not clearly established at the time of the violation. 1.
The United States Supreme Court recently reiterated “the longstanding principle that ‘clearly established law* should not be defined ‘at a high level of generality.’ ” White v.
Accordingly, we conclude that summary judgment based on qualified immunity was warranted because the law was not clearly established at the time of the alleged conduct. See White, 137 S.Ct. at 552 . 2.
-
107 F.3d 16 Ninth Circuit December 12, 1996 No. 95-16728Not cited Unpublished
Thus, Gerstein is entitled to qualified immunity unless Moore alleges the violation of a constitutional right that was clearly established at the time of the alleged violation.
For a right to be clearly established for qualified immunity purposes the "contours of the right must be sufficiently clear that [at the time the action is taken] a reasonable official would understand that what he is doing violates
Assuming arguendo that Gerstein violated "clearly established" law, he is still entitled to qualified immunity if he reasonably could have believed his conduct was lawful.
-
Ninth Circuit September 18, 2019 No. 18-55253Not cited Unpublished
The district court dismissed his claim at the pleading stage, holding that the doctors were entitled to qualified immunity. We reverse.
“To determine whether a constitutional right has been clearly established for qualified immunity purposes, we must survey the legal landscape and examine those cases that are most like the instant case.” Krainski v.
We find the allegations here sufficiently similar to Ulrich to satisfy the clearly established prong of the qualified immunity analysis at this early stage. Construing all allegations in Dr.
-
474 F. App'x 665 Ninth Circuit July 20, 2012 No. 10-35549Cited by 1 Unpublished
We exercise that discretion and we conclude that Appellees are entitled to qualified immunity.
A defendant is entitled to qualified immunity if the purported constitutional right was not “clearly established” at the time of the challenged conduct.
The “clearly established” standard is not satisfied here and thus, Appellees are entitled to qualified immunity. Harrell alleges that his First Amendment constitutional rights were violated by the Appellees.
-
393 F. App'x 425 Ninth Circuit August 18, 2010 No. 08-56835Cited by 1 Unpublished
Qualified Immunity Qualified immunity protects government workers from civil liability if “their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.”
Accordingly, the officials are entitled to qualified immunity. See Walker v.
Gomez, 370 F.3d 969, 978 (9th Cir.2004) (holding prison officials are entitled to qualified immunity if it was not clearly established that race-based differentiation is unconstitutional).
-
687 F. App'x 587 Ninth Circuit April 18, 2017 No. 16-35171Not cited Unpublished
Here, even if there were a violation of Marble’s due process rights, Smith is entitled to qualified immunity because those rights were not clearly established.
Qualified immunity should not be available to Defendant Heather Smith for violating Marble’s clearly established due process right to question the witness upon which the allegation of a parole violation was based.
His clearly established right to a hearing was effectively vitiated. Applying the doctrine of qualified immunity in this situation serves no legitimate purpose.
-
594 F. App'x 420 Ninth Circuit February 27, 2015 No. 13-17655Cited by 1 Unpublished
The district court properly dismissed Hayes’s First Amendment claim for damages on the basis of qualified immunity because Hayes did not have a clearly established right to receive mail weighing more than prison regulations permitted
Callahan, 555 U.S. 223, 232 , 129 S.Ct. 808 , 172 L.Ed.2d 565 (2009) (defendant is entitled to qualified immunity unless the conduct at issue violated a clearly established constitutional right); Hope v.
Qualified immunity does not preclude such prospective relief. See Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) v.
-
703 F. App'x 547 Ninth Circuit November 20, 2017 No. 16-17074Not cited Unpublished
We review de novo a dismissal on the basis of qualified immunity. Nelson v. Heiss, 271 F.3d 891, 893 (9th Cir. 2001). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Mize’s Eighth Amendment claim on the basis of qualified immunity because defendants’ conduct did not violate clearly established law. See Pearson v.
Callahan, 555 U.S. 223, 232 , 129 S.Ct. 808 , 172 L.Ed.2d 565 (2009) (defendant is entitled to qualified immunity unless the conduct at issue violated a clearly established constitutional right); Hope v.
-
707 F. App'x 889 Ninth Circuit December 20, 2017 No. 17-35122Not cited Unpublished
We review de novo a district court’s summary judgment and finding of qualified immunity, May v. Baldwin, 109 F.3d 557, 560-61 (9th Cir. 1997), and we affirm.
The district court properly granted summary judgment on the basis of qualified immunity because defendants’ conduct did not violate clearly established law. See Plumhoff v.
. -, 134 S.Ct. 2012, 2023 , 188 L.Ed.2d 1056 (2014) (officials sued under § 1983 are entitled to qualified immunity unless they violated a right that was clearly established; “a defendant cannot be said to have violated a clearly established
-
9 F.3d 1550 Ninth Circuit November 4, 1993 No. 93-15092Not cited Unpublished
Therefore, a prisoner's constitutional right to marry was not clearly established when the appellants denied appellee's requests to marry. 4 That the right was clearly established under California law prior to 1987 is irrelevant
for qualified immunity purposes.
Scherer, 468 U.S. 183, 193-94 (1984) (state official retains qualified immunity if the federal constitutional right was not clearly established, even if the conduct clearly violated state statute or regulation). 5 In Turner the
-
Ninth Circuit June 12, 2018 No. 16-15736Not cited Unpublished
The district court, however, did not consider whether a Bivens remedy was available here, because it correctly concluded that, in any event, Defendant Bacon was entitled to qualified immunity.
It was not clearly established that precluding the use of the mail for service of documents under the circumstances of this case violated a constitutional right of access to the courts.
The district court properly concluded Bacon was entitled to qualified immunity. He violated no right that was clearly established. Qualified immunity, however, does not constitute a bar to equitable relief. See Hydrick v.
-
996 F.2d 1226 Ninth Circuit June 28, 1993 No. 92-17082Not cited Unpublished
have a clearly established right to do so.
This contention lacks merit. 6 Prison officials are entitled to qualified immunity unless their conduct "violates clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known."
In order to determine whether an official is entitled to qualified immunity, a court must (1) identify the right allegedly violated, (2) determine whether the right was "clearly established," and (3) determine whether a reasonable
-
686 F. App'x 500 Ninth Circuit April 11, 2017 No. 15-56487Not cited Unpublished
In addition, the district court properly granted summary judgment to defendants Larry Waldie and James Corbin based on qualified immunity because Rodriguez failed to show that it was “clearly established” that the circumstances here
Pauly, — U.S. -, 137 S.Ct. 548, 552 , 196 L.Ed.2d 463 (2017) (per curiam) (reiterating that for qualified immunity the “clearly established law must be ‘particularized’ to the facts of the case” (citation omitted)); Clairmont v
-
Ninth Circuit June 26, 2023 No. 22-15956Not cited Unpublished
“The doctrine of 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 a reasonable person would
But I would also grant qualified immunity to Jeffrey Lee. Even if Ohana adequately pleaded an equal protection claim against Lee, Ohana has not sufficiently shown that Lee violated clearly established law.
Such a generalized statement of law cannot serve as a basis of “clearly established” law to deny a state official qualified immunity.
-
591 F. App'x 618 Ninth Circuit January 30, 2015 No. 12-17729Not cited Unpublished
We review de novo a district court’s summary judgment and finding of qualified immunity, May v. Baldwin, 109 F.3d 557, 560-61 (9th Cir.1997), and we affirm.
*619 The district court properly granted summary judgment to defendants Tannehill and Cogbill on the basis of qualified immunity because their conduct did not violate clearly established law. See Plumhoff v.
. -, 134 S.Ct. 2012, 2023 , 188 L.Ed.2d 1056 (2014) (officials sued under § 1983 are entitled to qualified immunity unless they violated a right that was clearly established; “a defendant cannot be said to have violated a clearly established
-
Ninth Circuit August 30, 2019 No. 18-55480Not cited Unpublished
The district court denied defendants’ motion for summary judgment on the merits and denied defendants’ attempt to invoke qualified immunity. We affirm the denial of qualified immunity.
Accordingly, the district court correctly denied qualified immunity as to Deputy Block. It was also clearly established that citizens cannot be detained for hours on account of being witnesses to a crime. See Maxwell v.
Kendrick’s detention violated a clearly established right, the seven individual defendants involved in the detention 3 are entitled to qualified immunity because the conduct of each defendant in isolation did not cross a clear
-
50 F.3d 14 Ninth Circuit March 20, 1995 No. 94-15460Cited by 1 Unpublished
discretionary functions enjoy qualified immunity from civil damages so long as their conduct does not violate 'clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.' " F.E.
The qualified immunity inquiry therefore turns on whether Fields' allegations implicate a "clearly established right[ ] ... of which a reasonable person would have known. F.E.
Therefore, even if we were to recognize such a right, McCannally is protected by the doctrine of qualified immunity from personal liability because no such right was "clearly established" at the time of the alleged misconduct.
-
384 F. App'x 625 Ninth Circuit June 17, 2010 No. 08-16466Not cited Unpublished
The district court properly entered summary judgment on Johnson’s claims under the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (“RLUIPA”) based on qualified immunity because the pertinent law was not clearly established in
Callahan, — U.S. —, 129 S.Ct. 808, 822 , 172 L.Ed.2d 565 (2009) (holding that state officers were entitled to qualified immunity because their actions did not violate clearly established law); see also Warsoldier v.
Showing the top 500 cases. Narrow your search or add filters to see more.