Peter Harrell v. Southern Oregon University

MEMORANDUM

Plaintiff-Appellant Peter T. Harrell (“Harrell”) appeals the district court’s grant of summary judgment for Defendants-Appellees in this 42 U.S.C. § 1988 action. The parties are familiar with the facts underlying the appeal and thus we do not include them here.

Courts may exercise their sound discretion in first deciding whether an individual and/or entity is entitled to qualified immunity before deciding whether the facts alleged make out a violation of a constitutional right. Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223, 236 , 129 S.Ct. 808 , 172 L.Ed.2d 565 (2009). We exercise that discretion and we conclude that Appellees are entitled to qualified immunity.

A defendant is entitled to qualified immunity if the purported constitutional right was not “clearly established” at the time of the challenged conduct. See Ashcroft v. al-Kidd, — U.S. —, —, 131 S.Ct. 2074, 2080 , 179 L.Ed.2d 1149 (2011). To be clearly established, a right must be sufficiently clear “that every reasonable official would have understood that what he is doing violates that right.” Id. at 2083 (internal marks omitted).

The “clearly established” standard is not satisfied here and thus, Appellees are…