The following excerpt is from Sekona v. Lizarraga, No. 2:17-cv-0346-KJM-EFB P (E.D. Cal. 2019):
Lastly, defendants argue that the court should afford them qualified immunity. To determine whether to do so at the summary judgment stage, the court must consider whether the undisputed facts show that a constitutional violation occurred, and whether the constitutional right at issue was clearly established at the time of the incident. Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223, 232 (2009). If the undisputed facts show no constitutional violation, or if the right was not clearly established, the court should grant the official qualified immunity. Id. In determining whether
Page 11
the right was clearly established, the court must ask (1) whether the law governing the official's conduct was clearly established and (2) whether a reasonable official, in the same position faced by the defendants, would understand that his conduct violated the law. Saucier v. Katz, 533 U.S. 194, 202 (2001).
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.