1. Did the Ninth Circuit's panel decision denying qualified immunity contravene this Court's mandate that courts should not hold officers to a standard of clearly established law at too high a level of generality and must give particularized consideration to the facts and circumstances of the case, which here involved undisputed facts that, after the officer's pepper spray deployments failed to overcome Najera's threats or gain his compliance, and just before shots were fired, Najera was holding a club in an upright position within striking range, facing the officer and posing an immediate threat not only to the officer, but also to bystanders present at the scene in the moments preceding the shooting?

2. Can qualified immunity be denied where no Supreme Court precedent supports the panel decision; and, even assuming circuit precedent may be relied upon in the absence of such precedent, Ninth Circuit precedent exists where that circuit granted qualified immunity and found no constitutional violation involving substantially similar facts (e.g., a sword held upright from a non-advancing subject)? See Blanford v. Sacramento Cnty., 406 F.3d 1110 (9th Cir. 2005).

Did the Ninth Circuit's panel decision denying qualified immunity contravene this Court's mandate that courts should not hold officers to a standard of clearly established law at too high a level of generality and must give particularized consideration to the facts and circumstances of the case?