At the motion to dismiss stage, can a court disregard the 'light most favorable' standard and require the plaintiff to prove her rights were 'clearly established' based on unfavorably interpreted facts?

1. At the motion to dismiss stage, all factual allegations in the complaint must be viewed as true and resolved in a light most favorable for the plaintiff. When assessing qualified immunity at the motion to dismiss stage, can a court di sregard this “light most favorable” standard and require the plaintiff to prove her rights were “clearly established” based on unfavorably interpreted facts? 2. When analyzing First Amendment employment retaliation cases, courts generally utilize a four/five step test to determine if an employee suffered adverse employment actions due to protected speech. In the instant case, the Ninth Circuit ruled against Petitioner on qualified immunity, seemingly because Petitioner did not provide analogous caselaw to each and every prong of the five -step test. In analyzing qualified immunity’s second prong, should courts look for cases with generally analogous fact s, viewing the case as a whole? Or should courts an alyze, separately for each prong of qualified immunity, whether factually similar case law exists?