Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 1012055.pdf

Citation: Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 1012055.pdf
Jurisdiction: Washington (state)
Source verification: official_capture_completeness_unverified
Original Source: https://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/pdf/1012055.pdf ↗

Related Parts of This Source

Full Text

1,774 chars

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, 73 L. Ed. 2d 396 (1982). Qualified immunity balances

protecting public officials from “harassment, distraction, and liability when they

perform their duties reasonably” with “the need to hold public officials accountable

when they exercise power irresponsibly.” Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223, 231,

129 S. Ct. 808, 172 L. Ed. 2d 565 (2009).

Courts determine whether a government official is entitled to qualified

immunity by considering (1) whether the facts make out a violation of a

constitutional right and (2) whether the right was “clearly established” at the time of

the alleged misconduct. Id. at 232. Courts may consider the two prongs in any order.

Id. at 236. The test is an objective one. Id. at 244; Staats v. Brown, 139 Wn.2d 757,

772, 991 P.2d 615 (2000); Harlow, 457 U.S. at 819.

Respondents argue their actions did not violate a clearly established

constitutional right. However, the due process right to notice and an opportunity to

29
For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/.
State v. City of Sunnyside et al.
No. 101205-5

be heard prior to eviction has been clearly established, and there are genuine disputes

of material fact as to whether the respondents’ actions violated due process.

Respondents have not shown they are entitled to summary judgment on this basis.

Qualified immunity will not attach when “[t]he contours of the right [are]

sufficiently clear that a reasonable official would understand that what [they are]

doing violates that right.” Anderson v. Creighton, 483 U.S. 635, 640, 107 S. Ct.