Opinion ID: 170083
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Two-Part Qualified Immunity Analysis

Text: As previously stated, when faced with a qualified immunity based motion for summary judgement, the burden shifts to the plaintiff. Cortez II, 478 F.3d at 1114. This burden shifting mechanism requires that a plaintiff show that (1) the defendant violated a constitutional or statutory right and (2) the right was clearly established at the time of the defendant's unlawful conduct. Mecham v. Frazier, 500 F.3d 1200, 1204 (10th Cir. 2007). Both Mecham v. Frazier and Cortez II are on point in the instant case since they both address excessive force claims. In Frazier, this court stated that the first question in -8- the qualified immunity analysis is whether, taking the plaintiff’s allegations as true, the defendant violated her constitutional rights. Frazier, 500 F.3d at 1204; see also Saucier v. Katz, 533 U.S. 194, 201 (2001); Reynolds v. Powell, 370 F.3d 1028, 1030 (10th Cir.2004). The second question was discussed in greater detail in Cortez II. Where a constitutional violation has been shown, the plaintiff must subsequently prove that the right was clearly established. Cortez II, 478 F.3d at 1114. We made clear that this second question “must be undertaken in light of the specific context of the case, not as a broad general proposition.” Cortez II, 478 F.3d at 1114 (internal citations and quotations omitted). Citing the Supreme Court’s decision in Saucier v. Katz, we explained the contours of the phrase “clearly established right.” 533 U.S. 194. “The relevant, dispositive inquiry in determining whether a right is clearly established is whether it would be clear to a reasonable officer that his conduct was unlawful in the situation....” Cortez II, 478 F.3d at 1114 (quoting Saucier, 533 U.S. at 202). With specific regard to the standard that a plaintiff must meet in order to show that a right is clearly established, we held in Cortez II that “there must be a Supreme Court or Tenth Circuit decision on point, or the clearly established weight of authority from other courts must have found the law to be as the plaintiff maintains.” Cortez II, 478 F.3d at 1114-15 (quoting Medina v. City of Denver, 960 F.2d 1493, 1498 (10th Cir.1992)). Additionally, we explained the interplay between this doctrinal analysis, specifically the second question, and a motion for summary judgment by stating that -9- “[s]ummary judgment based on qualified immunity is appropriate if the law did not put the officer on notice that his conduct would be clearly unlawful.” Cortez II, 478 F.3d at 1114 (citing Saucier, 533 U.S. at 202).