Douglas Cruz v. Joseph Decker ( 2021 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAR 17 2021
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
DOUGLAS CRUZ; LAURA J. BUCKLEY, No. 20-15745
Plaintiffs-Appellants, D.C. No.
2:19-cv-00265-JAD-NJK
v.
JOSEPH DECKER, MEMORANDUM*
Defendant-Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Nevada
Jennifer A. Dorsey, District Judge, Presiding
Argued and Submitted March 10, 2021
Las Vegas, Nevada
Before: CLIFTON, NGUYEN, and BENNETT, Circuit Judges.
Plaintiffs Douglas Cruz and Laura Buckley appeal the district court’s
dismissal of their lawsuit brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on account of defendant
Joseph Decker’s qualified immunity. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.
§ 1291. Reviewing de novo, see Keates v. Koile, 883 F.3d 1228, 1234 (9th Cir.
2018), we affirm.
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
“Qualified immunity shields federal and state officials from money damages
unless a plaintiff pleads facts showing (1) that the official violated a statutory or
constitutional right, and (2) that the right was ‘clearly established’ at the time of
the challenged conduct.” Olivier v. Baca, 913 F.3d 852, 860 (9th Cir. 2019)
(quoting Ashcroft v. al-Kidd, 563 U.S. 731, 735 (2011)). “For a right to be ‘clearly
established,’ existing ‘precedent must have placed the statutory or constitutional
question beyond debate,’ such that ‘every’ reasonable official would have
understood that he was violating a clearly established right.” Id. (quoting al-Kidd,
563 U.S. at 741).
1. In re Stratton, No. A-16-738866-J (Nev. Dist. Ct. Mar. 21, 2017), did
not clearly establish that Decker was obligated to update the actuarial table used to
calculate lump sum payments of permanent partial disability awards. “[A] district
judge’s ipse dixit of a holding is not ‘controlling authority’ in any jurisdiction,”
and a single trial court ruling “falls far short of what is necessary” to clearly
establish a legal rule “absent controlling authority: a robust ‘consensus of cases of
persuasive authority.’” al-Kidd, 563 U.S. at 741–42 (quoting Wilson v. Layne, 526
U.S. 603, 617 (1999)).
Stratton was not “a controlling command to Decker” personally, as plaintiffs
argue, because Decker was not a party to that litigation in his individual capacity.
The relevant party was either the Nevada Division of Industrial Relations (“DIR”),
2
a state agency, or Decker in his official capacity as the DIR Administrator, which
is the same thing. See Craig v. Donnelly, 439 P.3d 413, 416 (Nev. Ct. App. 2019)
(“[W]hen state officials or employees are sued in their official capacities, such
actions are truly against the office, not the individual, such that the action is
effectively against the state itself.” (citing Will v. Mich. Dep’t of State Police, 491
U.S. 58, 71 (1989))).
Nor is it of any consequence that Stratton placed DIR under a legal
obligation to update the actuarial table for the purpose of recalculating Larry
Stratton’s award. Even assuming that Decker personally had an obligation to
ensure that DIR complied with the Stratton order in less than nine months, as
plaintiffs assert, that obligation sheds no light on whether it was clearly established
that Stratton was correct as a matter of Nevada law. It is not enough that Decker
violated a legal duty to comply with a court order if his noncompliance with that
order was not the basis of the § 1983 suit. See Davis v. Scherer, 468 U.S. 183,
193–96 (1984).
2. The statutory amendment also did not clearly establish that Decker
violated a legal duty. While the amended statute provided that the actuarial table
“must be adjusted . . . on July 1 of each year,” Nev. Rev. Stat. § 616C.495(5)
(2017), it was reasonably uncertain whether the first adjustment was required in
2017 or 2018. For DIR to have acted by July 1, 2017, it would have had to bypass
3
the procedures for promulgating new regulations normally required by Nevada’s
Administrative Procedure Act. If the state legislature expected such a deviation, it
likely would have expressed its intent more clearly.
AFFIRMED.
4