N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
ADAM M IC HAEL HOR STM AN,

Pla i ntiff-Appe lle e , v. C ITY OF HILLSB OR O, a m unic ipa l c orporation, De fe nda

n t,
and DAVID B ONN; e t a l.,

De fe nda n ts-Appe lla

nts. No. 16-35986

D.C . No. 3:15-c v-00203-PK
M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Distric t of Ore gon Anna J. B rown, Distric t Judge , Pre s iding Argue d a nd Subm itte d M a

rc h 5, 2018 Portla nd, Ore gon 

# FIL ED APR 11 2018 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U
. S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public a t ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by Ninth C irc uit R

ule 36-3.B e fore : N.R . SM ITH a nd HUR W ITZ, C irc uit Judge s , a

nd C UR IEL, ** Distric t Judge
. Appe lla

nts Da vid B onn, B rian W ilbe r, an d Te d Sc hra de r (“ Individua l De fe nda nts” ) a ppe a l the distric t c ourt’ s orde r a dopting the m a gistra te judge ’ s re port a nd re c om m e ndation de ny ing the ir m otion for sum m ary judgm e nt se e king qua lifie d im

m unity in this 42 U.S.C . § 1983 a c tion. W e have jurisdic tion ove r this
a ppe a l unde r 28 U.S.C . § 1291, a nd we re ve rse . 1. A public offic ia l is e ntitle d to qua lifie d im m unity unle ss: (1) “ the fa c ts
a lle ge d, ta

ke n in the light m ost fa

v ora ble to the pa

rty a sse rting the injury , show that the offic ia l’ s c onduc t viola te d a c onstitutiona

l right” an d (2) the right a t issue

“ wa s c le arly

e s ta blishe d ‘ in light of the

spe c ific c onte xt of the c a s e ’ ” a t the tim e of the a lle ge d m isc onduc t . C lairmont v . Sound Me ntal He alth , 632 F.3d 1091, 1100 (9th C ir. 2011) (c ita

tion om i tte d). In the c onte xt of a n unla wful a rre st, “ the two prongs of thequa lifie d im m unity ana ly s is c an be sum

m ariz e d a s : (1) whe t

he r the re wa s proba

ble c a use for the arre st; a

nd (2) whe the r it is re asonably arguable tha t the re wa s proba

ble c a use for arre st—

that is, whe t he r re a sona

b le offic e rs c ould disa gre e a s to the le ga lity of the arre st suc h

tha t the arre sting offic e r is e ntitle d to

* * The Honora

ble Gonz a lo P. C urie l, Unite d State s Distric t Judge for the Southe rn Distric t of C a lifornia , sitting by de signa tion. 2qua lifie d im

m unity .” Rose nbaum v . W

ashoe C ty . , 663 F.3d 1071, 1076 (9th C ir. 2011). 2. Eve n a ssum ing tha t the Individua l De fe n da

nts la c ke d proba

ble c a use to
arre st Horstm an, the distric t c ourt e rre d in c onc l uding tha t the y viola te d a c le arly
e sta blishe d c onstitutiona

l right. A c le arly

e sta blishe d right is one

tha t is

“ suffic ie ntly

c le a r tha t e ve ry re a sona ble offic ia l would ha

ve unde rstood tha

t wha t he is doing viola

te s tha t right.” Re i c hle v . How ards , 566 U.S. 658, 664 (2012) (inte rna l m arks om itte d). The d istric t c ourt ne e d not ide ntify “ a c a s e dire c tly

on point, but e xisting pre c e de nt m ust ha ve pla c e d the sta

tutory or c onstitutiona

l que stion be y ond de bate .” Ashc roft v . al-K idd , 563 U.S. 731, 741 (2011). Qua lifie d im m un ity is m e ant to prote c t “ a l l but thepla inly inc om p e t e nt or those who knowingly

viola te the la w.” Malle

y v . Briggs , 475 U.S. 335, 341 (1986).

“ The dispositive

que stion is whe the r the viola tive nat ure of pa rtic ula r c onduc t is c le arly e s ta

blishe d.” Mulle nix v . Luna , 136 S. C t . 305, 308 (2015) (inte rna l m arks a

nd e m pha sis om itte d). In the c onte xt of a warra ntle ss a rre st, the
e sta blishe d rule m

u st re solve “ whe the r the c irc um sta nc e s with whic h [the pa rtic u la r offic e r] wa s c onfronte d . . . c onstitute [d] proba ble c a use .” Id . at 309 (inte rna l m arks om itte d). Pla intiff re lie s prim arily

on Grant v . C

ity of Long Be ac h , 315 F.3d 1081 (9th 3C ir. 2002) to a rgue that the offic e rs viola te d c le arly e sta blishe d c o nstitutiona

l la w. Unde r the tota lity

of the c irc um sta

nc e s, re a sona

b le offic e rs, re vie wing the fa c ts of Grant , c ould ha

ve disa gre e d whe the r the re wa s proba ble c a use to a rre st pla intiff. In this c a se , unlike G rant , the re we re e y e w itne ss ide ntific a t ions by two pe rc ipie nt witne s se s a s we l l a s sim ila ritie s in dre ss a

n d a ppe aranc e be t

we e n pla intiff a

nd the robbe ry suspe c t whic h

we re c a p ture d on se pa

ra t e surve illa

nc e vide os of the robbe r and the pla intiff. Ne ithe r Grant , nor a ny othe r c a se c ite d by

pla intiff provide d
a de quate notic e to the offic e rs tha t the y we re viola

ting a c le arly e sta blishe d
c onstitutiona

l right unde r the fa c ts be fore the m he re . M o re ove r, the Supre m e C ourt ha s re c e ntly

c a utione d a ga inst the“ re li[a nc e ] on a single de c i sion” in de te rm i ning whe the r a

c onstitutiona

l right wa s c le arly

e sta b l ishe d by

“ se ttle d la

w.” Se e Distric t of C

olumbia v . W

e sby , 138 S. C t. 577, 591 (2018). Afte r a re vie w of the re le va nt c a se la w, we c annot c onc l ude tha t the Individua l De fe nda

nts viola te d a
c le arly e sta blishe d c onstitutiona

l right. Thedistric t c ourt e rre d in de ny ing qua lifie d im

m unity to the Individua l De fe nda n ts. 3. De fe nda

nt B onn did not wa

ive his qua lifie d im

m unity argum e n t a s to the
m a lic ious prose c ution c la im
. RE V E RSE D AND RE M ANDE D.

4