Opinion ID: 766188
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Personal Capacity

Text: 20 Personal-capacity suits seek to impose personal liability upon a government official for actions he takes under color of state law. Graham, 473 U.S. at 165. A public official, however, is not subject to personal liability if she is entitled to qualified immunity. [W]hether an official protected by qualified immunity may be held personally liable for an allegedly unlawful official action generally turns on the`objective legal reasonableness' of the action, assessed in light of the legal rules that were `clearly established' at the time it was taken. Anderson v. Creighton, 483 U.S. 635, 639 (1987) (citations omitted). 21 This court has held that, when a public official acts in reliance on a duly enacted statute or ordinance, that official ordinarily is entitled to qualified immunity. See Grossman v. City of Portland, 33 F.3d 1200, 1210 (9th Cir. 1994) (holding that an officer who reasonably relies on the legislature's determination that a statute is constitutional should be shielded from personal liability). The existence of an authorizing statute is not dispositive, however. Qualified immunity does not extend to a public official who enforces a statute that is patently violative of fundamental constitutional principles. Id. at 1209. 22 Here, in refusing to renew Plaintiff's license, defendant Nielsen acted pursuant to a duly enacted state statute, California Business and Professions Code S 30. At the time of the refusal, there was no clear case law in either the federal courts or the state courts of California establishing that the issuance of a professional license may not be conditioned on the licensee's disclosure of her social security number. 2 Moreover, on its face, S 30 does not authorize official conduct which is patently violative of fundamental constitutional principles. Grossman, 33 F.3d at 1209. We therefore conclude that, in the circumstances, it was reasonable for defendant Nielsen to believe that S 30 was constitutional and to enforce its mandates against Plaintiff. Accordingly, Nielsen is entitled to qualified immunity against Plaintiff's claim for damages under S 1983. 3