Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): relevant inquiry is “fact specific,” Rodgers v. Horsley, 39 F.3d 308, 311 (11th Cir.1994), and the plaintiff must point to a controlling case, decided before the events at issue, that establishes a constitutional violation on “materially similar” facts. Lassiter v. Alabama A & M Univ. Bd. of Trustees, 28 F.3d 1146, 1150 (11th Cir.1994); see also Cofield v. Randolph County Comm’n, 90 F.3d 468, 470 (11th Cir.1996). As emphasized in Lassiter, “pre-existing law must dictate, that is, truly compel (not just suggest or allow or raise a question about), the conclusion for every like-situated, reasonable government agent that what de fendant is doing violated federal law in the circumstances.” Id.; see also Anderson v. Creighton, 483 U.S. 635, 640, 107 S.Ct. 3034, 3039, 97 L.Ed.2d 523 (1987)(<HOLDING>). The Eleventh Circuit has warned that 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that for purposes of the second question the right must have been clearly established in a particularized sense such that a reasonable official would have understood that what he was doing violated that right (B) holding that the relevant dispositive inquiry  is whether it would be clear to a reasonable state official that his conduct was unlawful (C) holding that plaintiffs complaint stated a claim for a constitutional deprivation but that the contours of the right at issue were not clearly established and that official was therefore entitled to qualified immunity (D) holding that the contours of the right must be sufficiently clear that a reasonable official would understand that what he is doing violates that right (E) holding that clearly established means the contours of the right were so clear at the time the officials acted that a reasonable official would have understood that what he was doing violated that right
Output (English): holding that the relevant dispositive inquiry  is whether it would be clear to a reasonable state official that his conduct was unlawful