What is the test for granting qualified immunity to an official under Section 15 of the Civil Code of Civil Procedure?

Determining whether an official is entitled to qualified immunity requires a two-part analysis. Saucier v. Katz, 533 U.S. 194, 201 (2001). First, a court must decide whether the facts alleged, when taken in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, show that the official's conduct violated a statutory or constitutional right. Id. Second, the court must determine whether the statutory or constitutional right

Page 15

was "clearly established." Id. A right is "clearly established" in the context of qualified immunity if "it would be clear to a reasonable [official] that his conduct was unlawful in the situation he confronted . . . or whether the state of the law [at the time of the violation] gave fair warning to the official[] that [his] conduct was unconstitutional." Clement v. Gomez, 298 F.3d 898, 906 (9th Cir. 2002) (internal citation and quotation marks omitted).

Although it is often beneficial to address the two-party inquiry in the sequence outlined above, it is not mandatory. Pearson, 555 U.S. at 236. A court has "discretion in deciding which of the two prongs of the qualified immunity analysis should be addressed first[.]" Id. A court may grant qualified immunity and dismiss a plaintiff's claims at any point the court answers either prong in the negative. See, e.g., Tibbetts v. Kulongoski, 567 F.3d 529, 536-39 (9th Cir. 2009) (bypassing the first prong and granting the defendants qualified immunity because the plaintiff's due process claim was not a clearly established right at the time of the alleged violation).