What is Qualified Immunity in a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Case?

One of the most problematic issues to a plaintiff pursuing a § 1983 civil rights case is qualified immunity.

Qualified immunity exists when law enforcement staff and prison staff reasonably could have believed that their conduct was lawful, even if the plaintiff's rights were indeed violated. Anderson v. Creighton (1987) 483 U.S. 635, 639, 107 S. Ct. 3034; 97 L. Ed. 2d 523; Harlow v. Fitzgerald (1982) 457 U.S. 800, 818, 102 S. Ct. 2727; 73 L. Ed.2d 396; Procunier v. Navarette (1978) 434 U.S. 555, 561-562, 98 S. Ct. 855; 55 L. Ed. 2d 24; see Sorrels v. McKee (9th Cir. 2002) 290 F. 3d 965, 970-971 (officers had qualified immunity from suit for enforcing regulation because their belief that the regulation was lawful was not unreasonable, even though the regulation was subsequently found unconstitutional). 

Courts can decide whether a claimed right was clearly established without first deciding whether the person’s rights were actually violated. Pearson v. Callahan (2009) 555 U.S. 223, 232, 242, 129 S. Ct. 808; 172 L. Ed. 2d 565.  Qualified immunity has been granted in a wide variety of contexts. See, e.g., Hamby v. Hammond (9th Cir. 2016) 821 F. 3d 1085; Chappell v. Mandeville (9th Cir. 2013) 706 F. 3d 1052; Noble v. Adams (9th Cir. 2011) 646 F. 3d 1138, 1142-1143; Jeffers v. Gomez (9th Cir. 2001) 267 F. 3d 895, 910; Marquez v. Gutierrez (9th Cir. 2003) 322 F. 3d 689, 691; Estate of Ford v. Ramirez-Palmer (9th Cir. 2002) 301 F. 3d 1043, 1050-1053; Osolinski v. Kane (9th Cir. 1996) 92 F. 3d 934, 936; 1052-1053; Kelley v. Borg (9th Cir. 1995) 60 F. 3d 664, 666.

Like absolute immunity, a defendant can assert qualified immunity only when being sued in an individual capacity for money damages.  Qualified immunity does not protect a defendant from being sued in an official capacity for injunctive or declaratory relief. Kentucky v. Graham (1985) 473 U.S. 159, 166, 105 S. Ct. 3099; 87 L. Ed. 2d 114; Los Angeles Police Protective League v. Gates (9th Cir. 1993) 995 F. 2d 1469, 1472; American Fire, Theft and Collision Managers v. Gillespie (9th Cir. 1991) 932 F. 2d 8, 16, 818; Thornton v. Brown (9th Cir. 2014) 757 F. 3d 834.

Qualified immunity also does not apply when a local government agency is being sued for money damages (Brandon v. Holt (1985) 469 U.S. 464, 473, 105 S. Ct. 873; 83 L. Ed. 2d 878) or when the lawsuit is against a private party acting under color of state law. Connor v. City of Santa Ana (9th Cir. 1990) 897 F. 2d 1487, 1492, fn. 9.

In deciding whether a defendant is entitled to qualified immunity, courts make a two-part inquiry: (1) was the law governing the state official's conduct clearly established?, and, if so, (2) under that law could a reasonable state official have believed his conduct was lawful?” Jeffers v. Gomez (9th Cir. 2001) 267 F. 3d 895, 910-911.

A right may be clearly established by a specific court decision on the same topic or by decisions or from which a reasonable person would infer that such conduct is unconstitutional. See, e.g., Jeffers v. Gomez (9th Cir. 2001) 267 F. 3d 895, 910-911; Newell v. Sauser (9th Cir. 1996) 79 F. 3d 115, 117; Kelley v. Borg (9th Cir. 1995) 60 F. 3d 664, 666-667; Vaughan v. Ricketts (9th Cir. 1988) 859 F. 2d 736, 740-741.

However, there are certainly also some situations in which a reasonable officer should know that conduct violates a person’s rights even if that specific conduct has not previously been addressed by statutes or cases. Hope v. Pelzer (2002) 536 U.S. 730, 741, 122 S. Ct. 2508; 153 L. Ed. 2d 666 (no qualified immunity where prison guards handcuffed person in prison to hitching post for seven hours, despite his having been subdued); Carrillo v. County of Los Angeles (9th Cir. 2015) 798 F. 3d 1210, 1219-1221 (no qualified immunity where police failed to disclose evidence that would have cast serious doubt on the testimony of key prosecution witnesses); Foster v. Runnels (9th Cir. 2009) 554 F. 3d 807, 814 (officer not entitled to qualified immunity for depriving a person in prison of food ); Hamilton v. Endell (9th Cir. 1992) 981 F. 2d 1062, 1066 (prison officials who deliberately ignored express orders of person’s prior physician could not claim qualified immunity); Allen v. City and County of Honolulu (9th Cir. 1994) 39 F. 3d 936, 938 (no qualified immunity where person forced to choose between right to law library access and right to outdoor exercise).

Although this article appears on our website, we must attribute it to someone else because a great deal of the information is the work of someone else.  That is the Prison Law Office in Folsom, California and their excellent work, The California Prison and Parole Law Handbook, from which we gathered a great deal of information for this article.  Thank you, Prison Law Office!