N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT R IC K M c L ELLAN,

Pla i ntiff-Appe lle e , v. STATE OF NEVADA DEPARTM ENT OF PUB LIC SAFETY; e t a l.,

De fe nda nt-Appe l la

nts. No. 18-15529

DC No. 3:12-c v-00391-M M DW GC M EM OR ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Distric t of Ne v a da M iranda M . Du, Distric t Judge , Pre siding Argue d a nd Subm itte d M a

y 17, 2019 San Fran c isc o , C a lifornia B e fore : IKUTA a

nd C HR ISTEN, C irc uit Judge s , a n d M orris ** , Distric t

Judge . De fe nda nt-Appe lla

nts, individua

l offic e rs with theStat e of Ne va da ’ s De pa rtm e nt of Public Sa fe ty

(DPS), a ppe a l the distric t c ourt’ s orde r de ny ing the ir



# FIL ED M AY24 2019 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U
. S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at 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.

** The Honora

ble B rian M . M o rris, Unite d State s Distric t Judge for the Distric t of M onta

na , sitting by

de signa tion.m otion for sum m a ry judgm e nt. B e c a

use the pa rtie s a re fam ilia r with thefa c ts, we do not re c ite the m

he re . W e have jurisdic tion unde r 28 U.S.C . § 1291, a nd we re vie w de novo the distric t c ourt’ s de c ision de ny ing sum m ary judgm e nt on the ba sis of qua lifie d

im m unity . Roy bal v
. Toppe n ish Sc h. Dist. , 871 F.3d 927, 931 (9th C ir. 2017). W e re ve rse . 1. Jurisdic tion is proper. Pursua nt to 28 U.S.C . § 1291, we have jurisdic t ion to c o nduc t inte rloc utory

re vie w of a

n orde r de ny ing qua lifie d im m unity . Id. The distric t c o urt’ s orde r de nie d sum m a ry judgm e nt a

nd thus “ pla i nly de nie d the [offic e rs’ ] qua lifie d im

m unity m otion.” Gie be l v . Sy lv e ste r , 244 F.3d 1182, 1186 n.6 (9th C ir. 2001). W e the re fore have jurisdic tion to de c ide the a p pe a l. 2. De fe nda

nts a re e ntitle d to qua lifie d im m unity . Our re vie wof the distric t c ourt’ s orde r de ny ing qua lifie d im m unity is limite d to que s tions of la w. R o y bal , 871 F.3d a

t 931. W e m ay a ffirm

only if “ (1) the fa c ts a lle ge d, ta k e n in thelight m ost fa vora ble to the pa

rty a sse rting injury , show tha t the [offic e rs’ ] c onduc t viola te d a c onstitutiona

l right, a nd (2) the right a

t issue wa s c le arly

e sta blishe d at the t im e of the inc i de nt suc h tha t a re a sona ble offic e r would ha

ve unde rstood [his] c onduc t to be unla

wful in tha

t situa tion.” Isay e v a v . Sac rame nto She riff’s De p’t , 872 F.3d 938, 945 (9th C ir. 2017) (inte rna l quota tion m arks om itte d ) (se c ond bra c ke t in original). W e m a y e x e rc ise our disc re t ion whe n de c iding whic h prong

2of qua lifie d im m unity to a na ly z e first. Pe arson v . C a llahan , 555 U.S. 223, 236 (2009). B e c a

use an offic e r is e ntitle d to qua lifie d im m unity if e ithe r prong is ne gative , the distric t c ourt e rre d by only a ddre ssing thefirst prong. The distric t c ourt de c ide d tha t an issue of fa c t pre ve nte d it from de te rm ining whe the r the re ha d be e n a

c onstitutiona

l viola tion, but a n offic e r is e ntitle d to qua lifie d im

m unity unde r the se c ond prong of the qua lifie d im m unity te st if he c ould ha v e “ re a sona

bly but m ista ke nly be lie ve d” tha

t his c onduc t did not viola te a c le arly e sta blishe d right. Ellins v . C

ity of Sie rra Madre , 710 F.3d 1049, 1066 (9th C ir. 2013) (quoting Hunt v . C ty . of Orange , 672 F.3d 606, 615–16 (9th C i r. 2012)). Eve n a ssum i ng M c L e lla

n’ s First Am e ndm e nt rights were viola t e d, de fe n da

nts c ould ha v e re a sona

bly be lie ve d tha

t M c Le lla n’ s re pe ate d a

n d a dm itte dly fa lse sta te m e nts would je opa

rdiz e future prose c utions in which he te stifie d, so tha t M c L e lla n c ould no longer pe rform his job. On the se fa c t s, de fe nda nts c o uld ha

ve re a s ona bly be lie v e d tha

t te rm inating M c Le lla

n’ s e m ploy m e nt for his repe at e d fa lse sta te m e nts did not viola

te a c le a rly e sta blishe d c onstitutiona

l right. W e the re fore c onc lude tha

t de fe nda nts a re e ntitle d to qua lifie d im m unity . RE V E RSE D.

3