Opinion ID: 811594
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Individualized Analysis

Text: The NSP appellants argue the district court erred by “lump[ing]” together all of the defendants instead of analyzing qualified immunity on an individual basis. The district court often did not specify which acts of which defendant required denying qualified immunity. The district court’s opinion provides a clear enough basis for our analysis because the district court discussed the two steps of the qualified immunity analysis and found genuine issues of material fact. See id. at 1163 (remanding -18- “because the [district court’s] analysis [was] so scant that [the appellate court was] unable to discern if the district court even applied both steps of the qualified immunity inquiry to all of the summary judgment claims”). When a district court does not state the facts it assumed as true, we “review . . . the record to determine what facts the district court, in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party, likely assumed.” Johnson, 515 U.S. at 319; see Brown, 518 F.3d at 558. We now examine the record to determine whether each appellant is entitled to qualified immunity on each claim of each plaintiff.