has asserted the violation of a right that was clearly established at the time of the defendant’s actions. In other words, the Court often uses these phrases as shorthand for the qualified immunity analysis required by Harlow, Mitchell, Anderson, and other pre-Siegert cases. In Mitchell, for example, the Court observed that “[u]nless the plaintiffs allegations state a claim of violation of clearly established law, a defendant pleading qualified immunity is entitled to dismissal before the commencement of discovery.” Mitchell, 472 U.S. at 526, 105 S.Ct. at 2815. Indeed, Siegert itself used the phrase “failed to allege” in a context where there is no question that the Court was referencing the law at the time of the event, not current law. See Siegert, 500 U.S. at 231, 111 S.Ct. at 1793 (<HOLDING>). The Court’s reference to “clearly established
holding that plaintiffs complaint stated a claim for a constitutional deprivation but that the contours of the right at issue were not clearly established and that official was therefore entitled to qualified immunity recognizing that qualified immunity shields officials unless the plaintiff demonstrates the defendant violated a constitutional right that was clearly established holding that the court evaluating a claim of qualified immunity must first determine whether the plaintiff states a claim of a constitutional violation at all and then must determine whether the claimed right was clearly established before proceeding to the qualified immunity question holding that in determining whether a state officer is entitled to qualified immunity for  1983 purposes courts may not consider whether the constitutional right was clearly established before determining first that a constitutional right was violated holding that defendant is entitled to qualified immunity because plaintiff failed to allege the violation of a clearly established constitutional right