Tabi v. Luzader

── Tabi v. Luzader ── Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit Date: May 05, 2026 Category: General NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAY 5 2026 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT FRANCOIS TABI, No. 24-7450 D.C. No. Plaintiff - Appellee, 8:20-cv-00323-HDV-JC v. MEMORANDUM* CHRISTOPHER LUZADER, Officer of Santa Ana College; RAY STOWELL, Officer of Santa Ana College; SCOTT BAKER, Police Officer of Santa Ana College, Defendants - Appellants, and CLAUDIA ALVAREZ, Trustee of Santa Ana College, ARIANNA BARRIOS, Trustee of Santa Ana College, JOHN HANNA, Trustee of Santa Ana College, ZEKE HERNANDEZ, Trustee of Santa Ana College, LINDA D. ROSE, President of Santa Ana College, PHILLIP YARBROUGH, Trustee of Santa Ana College, LAWRENCE LABRADO, Trustee of Santa Ana College, NELIDA MARTINEZ, Trustee of Santa Ana College, Defendants. * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.  Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California Valerie Baker Fairbank, District Judge, Presiding Submitted April 30, 2026** Before: MCKEOWN, N.R. SMITH, and H.A. THOMAS, Circuit Judges. Christopher Luzader, Ray Stowell, and Scott Baker (collectively, “the officers”) appeal the district court’s denial of their motion for summary judgment based in part on qualified immunity. We review de novo a district court’s denial of summary judgment, “including officers’ entitlement to qualified immunity.” Cardenas-Ornelas v. Johnson, 165 F.4th 1234, 1239 (9th Cir. 2026) (quoting Jones v. City of North Las Vegas, 150 F.4th 1030, 1035 (9th Cir. 2025)). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We affirm. “When evaluating a denial of summary judgment on the issue of qualified immunity, our review is limited to the ‘purely legal issue whether the facts alleged . . . support a claim of clearly established law.’” Alston v. Read, 663 F.3d 1094, 1098 (9th Cir. 2011) (quoting Moran v. Washington, 147 F.3d 839, 843 (9th Cir.1998)). We therefore “assum[e] that the version of the material facts asserted by the non-moving party is correct.” Cardenas-Ornelas, 165 F.4th at 1239 ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). 2 24-7450 (quoting Jeffers v. Gomez, 267 F.3d 895, 903 (9th Cir. 2001) (per curiam)). Tabi argues that the officers merely raise factual disputes and that we therefore do not have jurisdiction to consider this appeal. Accepting Tabi’s version of material facts as true, we have jurisdiction to consider if qualified immunity applies. See id.; Alston, 663 F.3d at 1098. To determine whether officials are entitled to qualified immunity, we “must decide ‘whether “the officer’s conduct violated a constitutional right” and whether “the right was clearly established” at the time of the alleged misconduct.’” Cardenas-Ornelas, 165 F.4th at 1239–40 (quoting Alston, 663 F.3d at 1098). First, the district court correctly held that a reasonable jury could conclude that there was a “substantial causal relationship” between Tabi’s protected exercise of speech on campus and the officers’ adverse actions against him. Ballentine v. Tucker, 28 F.4th 54, 61 (9th Cir. 2022). A reasonable jury could conclude that the officers’ “retaliatory animus [against Tabi] was ‘a “but for” cause’” of t