judgment based on qualified immunity. Akins v. Epperly, 588 F.3d 1178, 1182 (8th Cir.2009). ‘We view the facts in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, accepting as true the facts that the district court found were adequately supported, as well as the facts the district court likely assumed.” Brown, 574 F.3d at 496. Determining the question of qualified immunity involves the following two-step inquiry: (1) whether the facts shown by the plaintiff make out a violation of a constitutional or statutory right; and (2) whether that right was clearly established at the time of the defendant’s alleged misconduct. Saucier v. Katz, 533 U.S. 194, 201, 121 S.Ct. 2151, 150 L.Ed.2d 272 (2001), overruled in part by Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223, 236, 129 S.Ct. 808, 172 L.Ed.2d 565 (2009) (<HOLDING>). “Under the rule established in Pearson, we
holding the lilly analysis is not a sequential twostep process but rather one broad inquiry holding that the sequence of the saucier inquiry is not mandatory holding that twostep sequence is no longer an inflexible requirement holding that sauciers twostep sequence is not mandatory holding that the statute is mandatory