272 (2001)). The right allegedly violated must be defined at the appropriate level of specificity before a court can determine if it was clearly established. Id. (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting Wilson v. Layne, 526 U.S. 603, 615, 119 S.Ct. 1692, 143 L.Ed.2d 818 (1999)). Fishel contends that “no clearly established constitutional rule established that [she] violated the Eighth Amendment by failing to recalculate Figgs’s sentence in response to his concerns or by referring it to” the chief record office. This argument is flawed because it does not address the broader deficiencies with Fishel’s chosen course of action, which we have discussed above. The appropriate inquiry here is whether it was clearly established that Fishel’s failure to investigate the subst r. 1989) (<HOLDING>); Alexander v. Perrill, 916 F.2d 1392, 1397-99
holding that defendant was not resident of his mothers household even though his drivers license listed his mothers address and he received mail there because he expressed a belief that his residence was in a different location than his mothers home he rented and occupied his own residence and he testified that he was only living with his mother after expiration of his lease until he could find another place to live holding that the appellant waived his claim on appeal because he failed to address that claim in either his application for a coa or his brief on appeal holding same where senior record officer failed to take substantive action on prisoners claim that he was being held despite the expiration of his sentence holding that prisoners complaint alleging that he was punished for filing a grievance against a correctional officer was sufficient to provide notice of claim that he was retaliated against for exercising his first amendment rights holding that an officer stopped the defendant when he ordered the defendant to take his hand out of his pocket