In a § 1983 action arising out of fatal police shooting involving disputed allegations of Fourth Amendment violations, did the Ninth Circuit err in granting qualified immunity to a shooting officer exclusively on grounds that the preexisting case law did not 'clearly establish' the unlawfulness of the shooting officer's conduct at summary judgment without resolving disputed issues of fact identified by the district court in favor of the plaintiff and nonmoving party?

QUESTIONS PRESENTED In the context of Fourth Amendment claims alleging excessive force, the determination of a police officer's entitlement to qualified immunity in summary judgment proceedings requires a court to determine whether (1) the officer's conduct violated a constitutional right, and (2) whether that right was clearly established at the time of the incident. Tolan v. Cotton, 572 U.S. 650, 656 (2014). In this § 1983 action arising out of a fatal police shooting, the Ninth Circuit reversed the district court's denial of qualified immunity, holding that, notwithstanding the factual disputes identified by the district court, the shooting officer was granted immunity solely upon the Ninth Circuit's determination that the law was not sufficiently "clearly established" as to the unlawfulness of the shooting officer's conduct. In so holding, the Ninth Circuit failed to determine whether the facts of the shooting incident relied upon by the district court at summary judgment, when viewed in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, raised genuine factual disputes concerning whether the shooting officer's conduct was unlawful. This case starkly places into focus important questions over which the Ninth Circuit remains sharply divided from the majority of circuit courts, as follows: 1. In a § 1983 action arising out of fatal police shooting involving disputed allegations of Fourth Amendment violations, did the Ninth Circuit’s err in granting qualified immunity ii to a shooting officer exclusively on grounds that the preexisting case law did not “clearly establish’ the unlawfulness of the shooting officer’s conduct at summary judgment without resolving disputed issues of fact identified by the district court in favor of the plaintiff and nonmoving party? 2. When evaluating an officer’s entitlement to qualified immunity in summary judgment proceedings in § 1983 actions arising out of disputed allegations of Fourth Amendment violations during a use of force incident, is it constitutionally permissible for a circuit court to disregard a district court’s identification of disputed factual issues concerning whether the officer's conduct violated a constitutional right associated with the first prong of the qualified immunity analysis, and nevertheless grant the officer qualified immunity based solely upon the circuit court’s determination that the law was not “clearly established” at the time of the incident based solely upon the second prong of the qualified immunity analysis?