J. A. v. County of San Bernardino

facts and inferences therefrom in favor of the [P]laintiff[s], the [Deputy]

[D]efendant[s] nevertheless [are] entitled to qualified immunity as a matter of

23-4180 law.” Jeffers v. Gomez, 267 F.3d 895, 905–06 (9th Cir. 2001). We have

jurisdiction to review this legal question. See Pauluk v. Savage, 836 F.3d 1117,

1121 (9th Cir. 2016) (holding we “have jurisdiction, construing the facts and

drawing all inferences in favor of Plaintiffs, to decide whether the evidence

demonstrate[d] a [constitutional] violation by [the defendants], and whether such

violation was in contravention of federal law that was clearly established at the

time.”).

2. We review the district court’s denial of qualified immunity de novo. See

Est. of Aguirre v. County of Riverside, 29 F.4th 624, 627 (9th Cir. 2022). We must

affirm the district court’s denial of qualified immunity if, resolving all factual

disputes and drawing all inferences in Plaintiffs’ favor, Defendants’ conduct (1)

violated a constitutional right (2) that “was clearly established at the time of the

officer[s’] alleged misconduct.” Id. (citation omitted).

a. As to claim one, the district…