Eichler

MEMORANDUM ***

In this appeal, Appellants Sherbin and Lebeck (collectively “Appellants”) challenge the denial of summary judgment on qualified immunity grounds. Appellee Dwayne Eichler (“Eichler”) alleges that Appellants violated his constitutional rights when they failed to escort him while he was outside his cell during a prison lockdown on June 1, 2003. Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to Eichler, we must determine de novo whether there are any genuine issues of material fact and whether the district court properly applied qualified immunity principles. See Lee v. Gregory, 363 F.3d 931, 932 (9th Cir.2004); Bingham v. City of Manhattan Beach, 341 F.3d 939, 945 (9th Cir.2003).

We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 , 1 and we affirm in part, vacate in part, and remand for further consideration of whether the constitutional right at issue was clearly established for qualified immunity purposes.

Legal Standard

In Saucier v. Katz, 533 U.S. 194 , 121 S.Ct. 2151 , 150 L.Ed.2d 272 (2001), the United States Supreme Court set forth a two-part test for qualified immunity. Id. at 201, 121 S.Ct. 2151 . First, a court must consider whether, based on the facts alleged…