violated clearly established law.

Qualified Immunity, Clearly Established Law, and Trujillo 2 {7} We begin by addressing Wood’s argument that the district court erred in 3 concluding he failed to establish that Trujillo violated clearly established law.

Ultimately, “[a]n official is entitled 5 to qualified immunity on a motion for summary judgment if the right allegedly 6 violated was not so clearly established that an objectively reasonable, similarly 7 situated official would

Standard of Review and Qualified Immunity {6} The doctrine of qualified immunity protects government officials, including police officers, from liability for civil claims “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established

{8} We use a two-step analysis when evaluating a claim of qualified immunity: “(1) the defendant’s alleged conduct violated a constitutional or statutory right, and (2) the right was clearly established at the time of the conduct

Even if Plaintiff satisfies the first step of the analysis, Defendants are still entitled to qualified immunity if the law governing the violation was not “clearly established” at the time of the alleged violation.

their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.”

Qualified immunity should be recognized where, under the particular facts, it was objectively reasonable for the government official to believe that his or her acts did not violate a clearly established right. Yount v.

Holloway, 510 U.S. 510, 515 , 114 S.Ct. 1019 , 127 L.Ed.2d 344 (1994) (describing Davis as answering the “discrete question: Is qualified immunity defeated where a defendant violates any clearly established duty, including one under

If it was, then granting summary judgment based on 6 qualified immunity is improper. Cf. Chavez v. Bd. of Cty.

Comm’rs of Curry Cty., 7 2001-NMCA-065, ¶ 30 , 130 N.M. 753 , 31 P.3d 1027 (concluding that the 8 defendant officers were “not entitled to qualified immunity” where “the relevant 9 law was clearly established”).

We, therefore, conclude that Plaintiff has not met her burden to 10 overcome Defendant’s qualified immunity claim because she has not shown that 11 the right arguably violated was clearly established. 12 II.

Pierce, 359 F.3d at 1289 . 11 {6} “The doctrine of qualified immunity protects government officials from 12 liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established 13 statutory or constitutional

To overcome the qualified immunity defense, a “plaintiff must demonstrate 16 that (1) the defendant’s alleged conduct violated a constitutional or statutory right, 17 and (2) the right was clearly established at the time of the conduct

Since the law was not clearly established, the 4 defendants were entitled to qualified immunity and the lower court’s decision was 5 reversed. Id. 6 {41} Reichle controls our analysis here.

{6} “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

To overcome the qualified immunity defense, a “plaintiff must demonstrate that (1) the defendant’s alleged conduct violated a constitutional or statutory right, and (2) the right was clearly established at the time of the conduct.”

Since the law was not clearly established, the defendants were entitled to qualified immunity and the lower court’s decision was reversed. Id. 16 {41} Reichle controls our analysis here.

It granted Defendant Parkin qualified immunity, determining that “there was no apparent violation of a clearly established constitutional right” because it was reasonable for Defendant Parkin to have been uncertain as to whether a

Since Defendant Parkin was entitled to qualified immunity, the district court granted him summary judgment as a matter of law.

established Fourth Amendment rights.

“The applicability of qualified immunity is a question of law that 11 we review de novo.”

If it was, we then consider 14 “whether the relevant law was clearly established at the time of the alleged 15 violation of the constitutional right.” Chavez, 2001-NMCA-065, ¶ 15 .

Thus, where the facts of the case render an official’s 18 conduct objectively reasonable under the circumstances, the conduct does not 19 violate clearly established law for purposes of our qualified immunity analysis.

was clearly established at the time of the [alleged] conduct.”

immunity”).

immunity).

in the federal action were binding on the present case as to Plaintiffs’ claims of battery and false imprisonment based on 3 In granting summary judgment, the federal district court focused exclusively on the second prong of the qualified

immunity analysis and concluded that no “clearly established law put [Officer] Sanchez on notice that her actions violated C.V.’s Fourth Amendment rights to be free from unlawful seizure and excessive force.”

Defendants’ invocation of qualified immunity shifted the “heavy burden” to Plaintiff to establish that (1) the facts demonstrated a violation of a constitutional right, and (2) the right at issue was clearly established at the time

We apply a two-part test to determine whether qualified immunity shields officials from individual liability under Section 1983. Kennedy v. Dexter Consol. Sch., 2000-NMSC-025 , ¶ 10, 129 N.M. 436 , 10 P.3d 115 .

Second, we determine whether the constitutional right at issue was clearly established at the time of the alleged conduct. Id.

City of Worland, 977 F.2d 1392 (10th Cir.1992), was limited to the question of whether the district court had properly denied the defendants’ motion to dismiss on the basis of qualified immunity. Id. at 1396 .

Thus, the court’s discussion regarding generalized and conclusory testimony focused on the lack of time-specific evidence tying the alleged harassment to a time when the law was clearly established that sexual harassment violated equal

Defendants’ invocation of qualified immunity shifted the “heavy burden” to Plaintiff to establish that (1) the facts demonstrated a violation of a constitutional right, and (2) the right at issue was clearly established at the time

Section 41-4A-3(C). 5 {14} Among its notable features, the CRA prohibits the use of qualified immunity 6 as a defense to a claim brought pursuant to that act. Section 41-4A-4.

Qualified 7 immunity is a defense available to state officials sued in a personal capacity under § 8 1983 and provides immunity from damages “insofar as their conduct does not violate 9 clearly established statutory or constitutional