Davis v. State

Opinion

Nev. 450, 458-59, 168 P.3d 1055, 1061-62(2007); Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223, 232, 236 (2009) (recognizing that a plaintiff must satisfy these two elements but that a reviewing court may address the second element first).

On appeal, appellant argues that the district court erred in granting dismissal by applying a two-step test for qualified immunity because a reasonable person would have known that the conduct in question violated appellant's rights. We perceive no error in the district court's analysis, as the district court correctly determined that appellant's allegations, even if accepted as true, failed to demonstrate that respondents violated his constitutional rights, much less that appellant had clearly established constitutional rights that were violated. 1 Buzz Stew, 124 Nev. at 228, 181 P.3d at 672; Pearson, 555 U.S. at 232, 236; see Davis v. Scherer, 468 U.S. 183, 197 (1984) (concluding that a § 1983 plaintiff bears the burden of overcoming the defendant's qualified immunity by showing that his constitutional rights were clearly established). We therefore conclude that the district court did not err in finding that qualified immunity applied. Accordingly, we ORDER the judgment of the district court AFFIRMED.

Hardesty

, J.

Douglas Cherry

'In reaching this conclusion, we have given individual consideration to each of appellant's claims.

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA

2

(0) 1947A cc: Hon. Richard Wagner, District Judge James Anthony Davis Attorney General/Carson City Pershing County Clerk

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA

3

(0) 1947A e