Opinion ID: 542853
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: certain legal landmarks

Text: 20 Prefatory to our main discussion, we stake out the perimeters of the doctrine of qualified immunity and the junction where that doctrine and Fed.R.Civ.P. 56 intersect. 21
22 Qualified immunity shields government officials wielding discretionary powers 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. Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 818, 102 S.Ct. 2727, 2738, 73 L.Ed.2d 396 (1982). Whether a defendant actually infracted a plaintiff's rights is not the central issue: Even defendants who violate constitutional rights enjoy a qualified immunity that protects them from liability for damages unless it is further demonstrated that their conduct was unreasonable under the applicable standard. Davis v. Scherer, 468 U.S. 183, 190, 104 S.Ct. 3012, 3017, 82 L.Ed.2d 139 (1984). The applicable standard is an objective one. Thus: 23 Because qualified immunity does not address the substantive viability of a section 1983 claim, but rather the objective reasonableness of a defendant's actions, a plaintiff who is entitled to prevail on the merits is not necessarily entitled to prevail on the issue of qualified immunity. 24 Collins v. Marina-Martinez, 894 F.2d 474, 478 (1st Cir.1990); accord Brennan v. Hendrigan, 888 F.2d 189, 194 (1st Cir.1989); Newman v. Commonwealth of Massachusetts, 884 F.2d 19, 26 (1st Cir.1989), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 110 S.Ct. 1132, 107 L.Ed.2d 1037 (1990); cf. Unwin v. Campbell, 863 F.2d 124, 133 n. 9 (1st Cir.1988) (where defendants have winning position on merits, and merits and qualified immunity are intertwined, defendants are not disabled from pursuing and prevailing on interlocutory appeal). 25 The qualified immunity inquiry logically begins with identification of the right at issue and proceeds to place that right in historical perspective. If the right allegedly violated was clearly established when the challenged conduct took place, then the defendants should reasonably have been cognizant of it. Harlow, 457 U.S. at 818, 102 S.Ct. at 2738. In this context, the phrase clearly established has a special definition: The contours of the right must be sufficiently clear that a reasonable official would understand that what he is doing violates that right. Anderson v. Creighton, 483 U.S. 635, 640, 107 S.Ct. 3034, 3039, 97 L.Ed.2d 523 (1987). 26 In the case before us, the establishment hurdle is easily vaulted. Where persons are deprived of property interests, it has long been clearly established that due process safeguards must be afforded. See, e.g., Paul v. Davis, 424 U.S. 693, 711, 96 S.Ct. 1155, 1165, 47 L.Ed.2d 405 (1976); Board of Regents v. Roth, 408 U.S. 564, 569-70, 92 S.Ct. 2701, 2705, 33 L.Ed.2d 548 (1972). Defendants wisely concede that the revocation of plaintiff's land surveying license constituted deprivation of a property interest sufficient to animate due process protections. Accordingly, we assume for purposes of analysis that plaintiff's entitlement to due process was clearly established. See Chongris v. Board of Appeals, 811 F.2d 36, 40 (1st Cir.), cert. denied, 483 U.S. 1021, 107 S.Ct. 3266, 97 L.Ed.2d 765 (1987); Cloutier v. Town of Epping, 714 F.2d 1184, 1191 (1st Cir.1983). 27 After the complainant's clearly established rights have been ascertained, a reviewing court must evaluate the defendants' actions in light thereof. See Creighton, 483 U.S. at 640, 107 S.Ct. at 3039; Sullivan v. Carrick, 888 F.2d 1, 3 (1st Cir.1989). That is to say, we must determine whether defendants reasonably should have comprehended that their specific actions transgressed those clearly established rights. See Newman, 884 F.2d at 23. 28
29 From time to time, early resolution of qualified immunity questions can create strange procedural configurations. See, e.g., Domegan v. Fair, 859 F.2d 1059, 1061-62 (1st Cir.1988) (discussing restrictions on appellate jurisdiction when an interlocutory appeal raises a qualified immunity issue). Substantively, however, the usual Rule 56 criteria are undisturbed. Where a qualified immunity defense is advanced by pretrial motion, normal summary judgment standards control. Rogers v. Fair, 902 F.2d 140, 142 (1st Cir.1990); see also Unwin, 863 F.2d at 132. Hence, summary judgment is proper only if 30 the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law. 31 Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c). 32 Because granting summary judgment necessarily involves applying a legal standard to facts which must by definition be undisputed, appellate review of the district court's order is plenary. Garside v. Osco Drug, Inc., 895 F.2d 46, 48 (1st Cir.1990); Quaker State, 884 F.2d at 1513 (1st Cir.1989). Thus, we are obliged to examine the properly documented portions of the record and draw all reasonable inferences therefrom in the light most hospitable to the party opposing the motion. See Liberty Lobby, 477 U.S. at 255, 106 S.Ct. at 2513; Garside, 895 F.2d at 48. 4 It follows that, in a case postured like the present one, we must credit the plaintiff's version of defendants' actions to the extent that plaintiff has appropriately supported his version. See Domegan, 859 F.2d at 1064. If, viewed in this way, we find that issues of fact which were adequately raised below need to be resolved before the related legal issues can be decided, Mack v. Great Atlantic and Pacific Tea Co., 871 F.2d 179, 181 (1st Cir.1989), or if we believe the district court erred in expounding the law, we must reverse.