Opinion ID: 4553266
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: standard of review

Text: “This court reviews de novo a district court’s grant of a motion to dismiss based on qualified immunity.” Weise v. Casper, 593 F.3d 1163, 1166 (10th Cir. 2010). “Asserting a qualified immunity defense via a [Fed. R. Civ. P.] 12(b)(6) motion . . . subjects the defendant to a more challenging standard of review than would apply on summary judgment.” Thomas v. Kaven, 765 F.3d 1183, 1194 (10th Cir. 2014) (internal quotation marks omitted).2 Under our standard of review, “we accept as true all well-pleaded factual allegations in a complaint and view [them] in the light most favorable to the plaintiff,” then determine whether the complaint “contain[s] sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Wittner v. Banner Health, 720 F.3d 770, 774-75 (10th Cir. 2 The standard of review is more challenging because “[a]t [the motion to dismiss] stage, . . . the defendant’s conduct as alleged in the complaint . . . is scrutinized for objective legal reasonableness[,] [whereas] [o]n summary judgment, . . . the plaintiff can no longer rest on the pleadings, and the court looks to the evidence before it . . . when conducting the [qualified immunity] inquiry.” Behrens v. Pelletier, 516 U.S. 299, 309 (1996) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). 5 2013) (internal quotation marks omitted). At the same time, “we are not bound to accept as true a legal conclusion couched as a factual allegation.” Id. at 775 (internal quotation marks omitted). Whether there is a constitutional violation is a legal issue. See United States v. Von Behren, 822 F.3d 1139, 1145 (10th Cir. 2016) (“Determining whether an individual has properly [alleged the violation of a constitutional right] is a question of law, which we review de novo.” (internal quotation marks omitted)). And whether the right is clearly established is also a question of law. See Apodaca v. Raemisch, 864 F.3d 1071, 1075 (10th Cir. 2017) (explaining that when the issue of “qualified immunity arises . . . on a motion to dismiss, . . . our decision regarding qualified immunity does not hinge on any factual disputes[, and] we confront a purely legal issue: whether the underlying constitutional right was clearly established”).