Case law

Pratt v. Snohomish County

15 F.3d 1088 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Dec 16, 1994

Whether the defendants are immune from suit under this theory of liability depends on whether "a reasonable officer in [their] position could have believed, in light of clearly established legal principles," 1 Act Up! … Omission of these critical facts deprived the defendants of qualified immunity.

Fink v. Ylst

198 F. App'x 587 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jul 25, 2006

Qualified Immunity Public officials are entitled to qualified immunity from civil liability “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would … The duty of guards to intervene was not clearly established at the time of this incident. Lolli v. County of Orange, 351 F.3d 410, 418 (9th Cir.2003).

Holter ex rel. Holter v. City of Pasadena

257 F. App'x 2 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Oct 25, 2007

Government officials enjoy qualified immunity from civil damages unless then* conduct violates “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Harlow v. … In analyzing whether an official is entitled to qualified immunity, we must address two questions, in a particular order.

Deboer v. Pennington

206 F.3d 857 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Mar 17, 2000

If the right is not clearly established, the individual defendants are entitled to qualified immunity. See Thompson v. Souza, 111 F.3d 694, 698 (9th Cir. 1997). … Clearly Established Law 31 Having identified the right at issue, we must determine whether it was clearly established before January 31, 1995.

Carver v. Lehman

528 F.3d 659 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jun 9, 2008

We conclude, however, that this right was not clearly established at the time of the facts giving rise to this case. We therefore affirm the district court’s grant of qualified immunity. I. … Qualified Immunity Qualified immunity protects “government officials ... from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable

Brenda Marsh v. County of San Diego

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · May 29, 2012

Qualified Immunity [18] Even if Coulter violated Marsh’s constitutional rights under color of state law, he’s entitled to qualified immunity because the right wasn’t “clearly established” at the time of his conduct. … Although the Catsouras court found a state privacy right over death images, it found no clearly established federal right and dismissed the section 1983 claim on qualified immunity grounds. 181 Cal.

Bryan v. MacPherson

630 F.3d 805 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jun 18, 2010

We nonetheless concluded that Officer MacPherson was entitled to qualified immunity from Bryan’s 42 U.S.C. § 1983 suit, because this principle was not clearly established in 2005 when Officer MacPherson deployed his dart … Officer MacPherson opposed Bryan’s petition, arguing that the panel had correctly applied the law of qualified immunity.

97 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 2785, 97 Daily Journal D.A.R. 4929 Charles W. Thompson v. Gary R. Souza, in His Individual and Official Capacity T.M. De La Rosa, in His Individual Capacity G.D. Jordan, in His Individual Capacity

111 F.3d 694 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Apr 16, 1997

If it was not clearly established, the official is entitled to immunity from suit. … Because Thompson has not proved that the Officials' conduct violated clearly established law, we reverse the order of the district court denying the Officials qualified immunity as to the strip search claim. B.

Rodriguez v. MARICOPA CTY. COMMUNITY COLLEGE DIST.

605 F.3d 703 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · May 20, 2010

Qualified Immunity [1] It’s clearly established in our circuit that public employees are entitled under the Equal Protection Clause to be free of purposeful workplace harassment on the basis of protected status. … was not clearly established.

Bollinger v. Oregon

305 F. App'x 344 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Dec 11, 2008

The district court did not err in precluding Bollinger’s proposed witnesses from testifying about whether the law was clearly established. See Act Up.!/Portland v. … Bagley, 988 F.2d 868, 873 (9th Cir.1993) (“The threshold determination of whether the law governing the conduct at issue is clearly established is a question of law for the court.”).

Kent Louis Wallace v. Cliff Lathrope, Rick Del Fiorentino, and the City of Fort Bragg

60 F.3d 836 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jul 3, 1995

Qualified Immunity 3 We review de novo the district court's denial of a qualified immunity defense. Act Up!/Portland v. … Bagley, 988 F.2d 868, 871 (9th Cir. 1993). 4 To determine whether an official is entitled to qualified immunity, a court must determine (1) whether the right allegedly violated was "clearly established" at the time of the

Jose A. Sonoda v. Antonio R. Cabrera

255 F.3d 1035 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jul 3, 2001

Qualified Immunity 23 The individual defendants, to the extent they have been sued in their individual capacities for violation of§ 1983, have raised qualified immunity as an affirmative defense. … Because Sonoda has established a constitutional violation based upon due process, it is necessary to determine whether the defendants are entitled to qualified immunity.

Randall v. Williamson

211 F. App'x 565 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Nov 22, 2006

Whether it would be clear to a reasonable officer that he acted unlawfully in the situation determines the latter qualified immunity inquiry — namely, whether the right is “clearly established.” … clearly established.

Jensen v. City Of Oxnard

145 F.3d 1078 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · May 28, 1998

Qualified Immunity 22 All of the individual defendants claim that they are entitled to qualified immunity. … Government officials are given qualified immunity from civil liability under § 1983 "insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have

Austin v. McNamara

979 F.2d 728 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Nov 6, 1992

Immunity from Damages under HCQIA HCQIA was designed both to provide for effective peer review and interstate monitoring of incompetent physicians and to grant qualified immunity from damages for those who participate in … The professional review activities, while not qualifying on their own as professional review actions, are nevertheless a component (ah inclusion) of those actions for purposes of immunity.

Moreno v. Baca

400 F.3d 1152 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Mar 7, 2005

The court denied the deputies’ motion for summary judgment on qualified immunity grounds, holding that Moreno’s constitutional right to be free from suspi-cionless searches was “clearly established” at the time of the detention … Appellants’ first argument in favor of qualified immunity — that it was not clearly established that Moreno had any right to be free from suspicionless searches because of his parole status and his outstanding arrest warrant

Phaneuf v. Republic of Indonesia

106 F.3d 302 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Feb 7, 1997

In other existing precedent, defendants have established their prima facie entitlements to sovereign immunity by proving only that they qualified as “foreign state[s]” under 28 U.S.C. § 1603 (a)-(b). … As conceded by Phaneuf, both Indonesia and the NDSC qualify as foreign states under the FSIA. 1 The district court erred in determining that the Republic of Indonesia and the NDSC had not established a prima facie case of

Prison Legal News v. Washington State Department of Corrections

11 F. App'x 729 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Mar 21, 2001

“Law enforcement officers ... enjoy qualified immunity from civil damage suits unless their conduct violates ‘clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.’ ” Schwenk … The district court erred, however, by also dismissing the plaintiffs remaining claims for declaratory and injunctive relief pursuant to a finding of qualified immunity.

Neaves v. City of San Diego

70 F. App'x 428 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jun 27, 2003

The grant of summary judgment was based on defendants’ qualified immunity. … We affirm the district court’s grant of summary judgment against Makenzie’s claim of unlawful seizure on the basis of qualified immunity.

Nevada v. Hicks

196 F.3d 1020 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Nov 9, 1999

We also affirm the district court’s rulings on the issues of sovereign immunity and qualified immunity. A. … court did find that “it is not prevented by doctrines of sovereign or qualified immunity from lawfully exerting personal jurisdiction over specially appearing State defendants,” this finding was clearly restricted to the