statements in a declaration filed to terminate a plaintiffs guardianship over a minor child, a state child welfare official violates the plaintiffs substantive due process rights. Costanich v. Dep’t of Soc. & Health Servs., 627 F.3d 1101, 1114 (9th Cir.2010) (relying on Devereaux v. Abbey, 263 F.3d 1070 (9th Cir.2001)). Even assuming that this is correct, however (which this court need not and does not decide), it would not defeat the qualified immunity of the DCYF officials who submitted the guardianship petitions at issue here. First, a single judicial decision recognizing a constitutional right does not “clearly establish” that right for purposes of qualified immunity, unless, of course, that decision is binding in the jurisdiction in question. See al-Kidd, 131 S.Ct. at 2083-84 (<HOLDING>). Second, the Costanich court held that the
holding that there is no mandatory order of decisionmaking in qualified immunity cases holding that where defendant claiming qualified immunity relies on facts that are in dispute qualified immunity cannot be granted holding that defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity holding that qualified immunity is not merely immunity from damages but also immunity from suit holding that absent controlling authorityu a robust consensus of cases of persuasive authority is necessary to overcome qualified immunity