Rick McLellan v. Nv Dept of Public Safety
18-15529
| 9th Cir. | May 24, 2019Background
- Nevada DPS officers (defendants) appealed the district court’s denial of their motion for summary judgment based on qualified immunity after they terminated McLellan’s employment.
- The district court found factual disputes precluded resolving whether the officers violated McLellan’s First Amendment rights and denied qualified immunity.
- The Ninth Circuit reviewed the denial of qualified immunity de novo and exercised jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291.
- The court framed the qualified-immunity inquiry as two-pronged: (1) whether the facts show a constitutional violation, and (2) whether the right was clearly established such that a reasonable officer would know the conduct was unlawful.
- The Ninth Circuit concluded that even if McLellan’s First Amendment rights were violated, the officers could have reasonably (but mistakenly) believed termination was lawful because McLellan repeatedly made false statements that could jeopardize future prosecutions.
- The Ninth Circuit reversed the district court and held the defendants were entitled to qualified immunity.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether defendants’ conduct violated the First Amendment | McLellan argues termination for his statements violated his First Amendment rights | Defendants argue termination was permissible because statements were false and undermined job performance/prosecutions | District court found factual disputes; Ninth Circuit assumed violation for purposes of immunity analysis but did not decide the question finally |
| Whether the right was clearly established at the time | McLellan: a reasonable officer would know firing for protected speech is unlawful | Defendants: reasonable officers could believe firing was lawful given repeated, admittedly false statements that jeopardized prosecutions | Ninth Circuit held the right was not clearly established here; officers reasonably could have believed termination lawful, so qualified immunity applies |
| Proper approach to qualified immunity on summary judgment | McLellan: district court should resolve constitutional-violation question first | Defendants: court may analyze either prong; entitlement to immunity if second prong resolved in their favor | Ninth Circuit held district court erred by addressing only the first prong; appellate court may consider second prong and did so |
| Standard of review for denial of qualified immunity | McLellan: factual disputes preclude summary judgment | Defendants: legal review de novo; reasonable mistake of law/fact supports immunity | Ninth Circuit applied de novo review and concluded defendants entitled to qualified immunity |
Key Cases Cited
- Roybal v. Toppenish Sch. Dist., 871 F.3d 927 (9th Cir. 2017) (standard for interlocutory review of qualified immunity denials)
- Giebel v. Sylvester, 244 F.3d 1182 (9th Cir. 2001) (denial of summary judgment that plainly denies qualified immunity is immediately appealable)
- Isayeva v. Sacramento Sheriff’s Dep’t, 872 F.3d 938 (9th Cir. 2017) (two-prong qualified immunity test)
- Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223 (2009) (courts may choose which qualified-immunity prong to analyze first)
- Ellins v. City of Sierra Madre, 710 F.3d 1049 (9th Cir. 2013) (officer entitled to immunity if he could have reasonably but mistakenly believed his conduct lawful)
- Hunt v. County of Orange, 672 F.3d 606 (9th Cir. 2012) (discusses reasonable but mistaken belief standard for immunity)