BATES v. SCHWARZENEGGER (2020)

MEMORANDUM ***

This consolidated appeal arises from civil rights complaints filed by Appellants-Plaintiffs California state prison inmates, under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that Appellees-Defendants state officials violated their right, under the Eighth Amendment, to be protected from heightened exposure to Valley Fever spores. The district court dismissed Plaintiffs’ claims based on qualified immunity. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and review de novo dismissal based on qualified immunity under Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. See Hines v. Youseff, 914 F.3d 1218, 1227 (9th Cir. 2019).

Dismissal of Plaintiffs’ claims against the state official defendants was proper because it would not have been clear to every reasonable official that Plaintiffs’ heightened exposure to Valley Fever was unlawful under the circumstances. See id. at 1229 (holding that there was no clearly established “right to be free from heightened exposure to Valley Fever spores”).

Plaintiffs’ argument that we may depart from our ruling in Hines is unavailing. A “later three-judge panel considering a case that is controlled by the rule announced in an earlier panel's opinion has no choice but to apply the earlier-adopted rule.” Hart v. Massanari, 266 F.3d 1155, 1171-73 (9th Cir. 2001).

Plaintiffs’ contention that the qualified immunity doctrine violates the separation of powers doctrine or violates due process is unavailing. Circuit courts must follow Supreme Court precedent. See Miller v. Gammie, 335 F.3d 889, 900 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc) (explaining that “lower courts [are] bound ․ by the holdings of higher courts’ decisions”). The Supreme Court has repeatedly, including very recently, reaffirmed and applied the doctrine of qualified immunity. See e.g., Taylor v. Riojas, No. 19-1261, ––– U.S. ––––, 141 S.Ct. 52, ––– L.Ed.2d ––––, 2020 WL 6385693 at *1 (Nov. 2, 2020) (per curiam); Kisela v. Hughes, ––– U.S. ––––, 138 S. Ct. 1148, 1152, 200 L.Ed.2d 449 (2018) (per curiam). Thus, we also apply the doctrine here.

AFFIRMED.