Opinion ID: 2979960
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Qualified Immunity Factors

Text: Qualified immunity provides that “government officials performing discretionary functions generally are shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Champion, 380 F.3d at 900-901 (citing Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 818 (1982)). This court evaluates qualified immunity claims using the three-part inquiry set forth in Feathers v. Aey, 319 F. 3d 843, 848 (6th Cir. 2003). First, this court must determine whether Umani has alleged facts which, taken in a light most favorable to him, show that the official’s conduct violated a constitutionally protected right. If the answer to the first question is “yes,” then this court must determine whether 6 No. 10-1169 Umani v. Wolfenbarger, et al. the violated right was “clearly established such that a reasonable official, at the time the act was committed, would have understood that his conduct violated that right.” Id. Thirdly, if the right was clearly established, we must consider whether Umani has alleged sufficient facts and supported his allegations with sufficient evidence to indicate that what the official did was unreasonable in light of the clearly established constitutional right. Id. This court has discretion to decide which of the prongs of qualified immunity analysis should be addressed first in light of the circumstances. See Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223, , 129 S. Ct. 808, 818 (2009). We begin by addressing whether Umani has alleged facts or produced evidence which, taken in a light most favorable to him, show that the defendants’ conduct violated a constitutionally protected right. Because we find that he has not, we need not address the remaining factors, and we conclude that the defendants are entitled to qualified immunity.