Summary
This document is a dissenting opinion from the Supreme Court’s denial of certiorari in a civil rights action alleging excessive force in violation of the Fourth Amendment. Justice Alito argues that the lower courts improperly relied on a circuit precedent issued after the incident to satisfy the “clearly established law” requirement for defeating qualified immunity. He emphasizes that post-event judicial decisions cannot provide the requisite notice to government officials. The dissent would grant certiorari and summarily reverse to correct this doctrinal error.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether post‑event appellate precedent can satisfy the "clearly established" requirement for qualified immunity.
Key quotations
“A judicial decision can serve as a basis for clearly established law only if it predates the allegedly unlawful conduct.”
Factual background
In 2017 Officer Michael Pina shot and killed Jacob Dominguez after Dominguez allegedly dropped his hands and leaned forward during a police encounter. A jury found Pina liable for excessive force under the Fourth Amendment and 42 U.S.C. §1983.
Procedural history
The district court denied Officer Pina's motion for judgment as a matter of law on qualified‑immunity grounds, relying on Peck v. Montoya. The Ninth Circuit affirmed that decision in an unpublished opinion. The Supreme Court denied the petition for certiorari.