N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
W ENDY J. PAULUK, Psy .D, individually and a s pe rsona l re pre se ntat ive of the propose d Esta

te of Da nie l Pa uluk; JAIM E L. PAULUK; C HR ISSY J. PAULUK, Plaintiffs - Appe lle e s, v. GLENN SAVAGE, a

n individual; EDWARD W OJC IK, an individual, De fe nda

nts - Appe lla

nts. No. 14-15027

D.C . No. 2:07-c v-01681-PM PVC F M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Distric t of Ne v a da Philip M . Pro, Se nior Distric t Judge , Pre siding Argue d a nd Subm itte d Fe brua

ry 11, 2016 San Fran c isc o , C a lifornia B e fore : NOONAN, W . FLETC HER , a nd M UR GUIA, C irc uit Judge s . De fe nda nts–Appe lla

nts (“ De fe nda

nts” ) Gle nn Sava ge and Edwa rd W ojc ik bring this inte

rloc utory a ppe a l c ha lle nging thedistric t c ourt’ s de nia l of qua lifie d



# FIL ED FEB 29 2016 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 9th C ir. R . 36-3.im

m unity . W e c onc lude that the Appe lla nts a re e ntitle d to qua lifie d im m unity , a nd we the re fore re ve rse the distric t c ourt. W e have jurisdic tion to de c ide whe the r, a ssum ing tha t the Pla intiffsAppe l le e s’ (“ Pla intiffs” ) ve rsion of thefa c ts is true , the De fe n da nts viola te d a c le arly e sta blishe d c onstitutiona

l right. Be hre ns v

Pe lle tie r , 516 U.S. 299, 312–13 (1996); K e nne dy v . C i ty of Ridge fie ld , 439 F.3d 1055, 1059–60 (9th C ir. 2006). The De fe nda

n t s a re e ntitle d to qua lifie d im m unity only if the fa c ts, ta

ke n in the light m ost fa

v ora b le to the pla i ntiffs, de m onstra te (1) that the Appe lla

nts’ c onduc t viola te d a c onstitutiona

l right, a nd (2) tha t the c onstitutiona

l right wa s “ c le arly e sta blishe d.” Sauc ie r

v . K atz , 533 U.S. 194, 201 (2001). We have disc re tion to gran t qua lifie d im

m unity on e ithe r ground. Pe arson v . C allahan , 555 U.S. 223, 236 (2009). Eve n a ssum ing tha

t the De fe nda

nts viola t e d the C onstitution by

tra nsfe rring Pa uluk to Sha dow La

ne in 2003 a

nd subse q ue ntly re fusing to move him

out, we c onc lude tha

t a c onstitutiona

l viola tion, if a ny , wa s not “ c le arly

e sta blishe d.” The fa c t s of this c a s e are ve ry sim ila r to C ollins v . C

ity of Hark e r He i ghts , 503 U.S. 115 (1992). B oth C

ollins and this c a se involve d c onstitutiona l a lle gat ions ste m m ing from

a sta te e m ploy e r’ s de c ision to send a pe rson into a work e nvironm e nt pollute d by

a biotic da nge r, suc h

a s la c k of oxy ge n (a s in C ollins ) or -2-toxic m old (a s in this c a s e ). C ollins , 503 U.S. a

t 117. In C

ollins , the Supre m e C ourt re je c te d the pla intiff’ s c la im tha t the re wa s a

c onstitutiona

l viola tion unde r suc h c i rc um sta

nc e s. Id. at 130. Given the sim ila rity be twe e n the fa c ts of this c a se and C ollins , it wa s re a sona

ble for the De fe nda

nts to a ssum e tha

t the ir c onduc t did not viola te the C onstitution. Pla intiffs m ay

be c orre c t

tha t this c a se m ay

be distinguishe d

from C ollins
. He re , Pla intiffs ha

ve a lle ge d

a c onstitutiona

l c la i m unde r the sta

te -c re ate d da

nge r doc trine , rathe r tha

n arguing sim

ply tha t De fe n da nts viola t e d Pa u luk’ s c onstitutiona

l right to a

sa fe workpla c e . C

o llins doe s not ne c e ssa

rily fore c lose Pla i ntiffs’ c la im s, give n tha t we have pre viously

pe rm itte d a

sta te -c re ate d da

nge r c la im to proc e e d, notwithsta

nding thefa c t tha

t the ha rm oc c urre d in a

workpla c e e nvironm e nt. S

e e L.W . v . Grubbs , 974 F.2d 119, 122 (9th C ir. 1992). Ne ve rthe le ss, e ve n a ssum ing tha t the sta t e -c re at e d da

nge r doc trine is prope rly c onstrue d a s a

n “ e xc e ption” to C

ollins suc h tha

t the pla intiffs’ have a lle ge d a va lid c onstitutiona

l viola t ion, thefa c tua l c irc um sta n c e s of this c a se are sim

ply too sim ila r to the fa c ts of C

ollins for the De fe nda

nts to ha ve be e n “ on notic e [that] the i r c o nduc t [wa ] s unla

w ful.” Pe arson , 555 U.S. a t 244 (quoting Hope v . Pe lze r , 536 U.S. 730, 739 (2002)). RE V E RSE D and RE M ANDE D. -3-