Case law

Nichols v. Brown

945 F. Supp. 2d 1079 · District Court, C.D. California · Mar 3, 2013

“The doctrine of 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 person … Kealoha, 869 F.Supp.2d 1203, 1224 (D.Hawai’i 2012) (police chief entitled to qualified immunity where the alleged right to a firearm ownership permit following a harassment conviction was not clearly established); Dorr v.

LeBaron v. United States

794 F. Supp. 947 · District Court, C.D. California · Jan 13, 1992

In Harlow , the Supreme Court departed from its previous “knew or should have known” standard for determining when government officials act outside their qualified immunity and instead established a purely objective standard … In this case, Plaintiff makes precisely the argument, albeit under section 7431(b), that the Supreme Court rejected in the context of qualified immunity.

Marshall v. Gates

812 F. Supp. 1050 · District Court, C.D. California · Jan 15, 1993

B) Qualified Immunity for Public Officials When performing discretionary functions, governmental officials are entitled to qualified immunity unless, in taking the challenged action, they violate “clearly established statutory … Finally, when qualified immunity is at issue, plaintiff bears the burden of showing that a “fact-specific constitutional right was clearly established.” Davis v.

Carlsberg v. Gatzek

442 F. Supp. 813 · District Court, C.D. California · Dec 16, 1977

For these reasons, the doctrine of absolute immunity established in Imbler must be applied in this case. … than qualified.

Cunningham v. Gates

989 F. Supp. 1262 · District Court, C.D. California · Dec 16, 1997

QUALIFIED IMMUNITY STANDARD “Government officials who perform discretionary functions are protected from liability for civil damages as long as ‘their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … Gates, 99 F.3d 911 (9th Cir.1996), conclusively establishes their entitlement to qualified immunity.

California Attorneys for Criminal Justice v. Butts

922 F. Supp. 327 · District Court, C.D. California · Apr 10, 1996

A government official is entitled to qualified immunity only if he is “performing discretionary functions” and if his “conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable … In Harlow , the Supreme Court reasoned that qualified immunity was necessary to ensure that when government officials must take action where “clearly established rights are not implicated,” they can act “with independence

Morton v. Hall

455 F. Supp. 2d 1066 · District Court, C.D. California · Oct 5, 2006

by the 11th Amendment and qualified immunity. … Katz, 533 U.S. 194 , 121 S.Ct. 2151 , 150 L.Ed.2d 272 (2001), the Supreme Court established a three-part qualified immunity test.

Glazer v. City of Long Beach

210 F. Supp. 2d 1131 · District Court, C.D. California · Apr 7, 2000

When a law enforcement officer asserts qualified immunity to preclude liability for alleged Fourth Amendment violations, the court “must determine whether, in light of clearly established principles governing the conduct … Under this standard, the officer is entitled to qualified immunity, unless a reasonable police officer would have known that the conduct at issue was unlawful under clearly established law.

Hernandez v. Cate

918 F. Supp. 2d 987 · District Court, C.D. California · Jan 18, 2013

Regardless of whether or not a constitutional violation occurred, qualified immunity is available if *1020 the right allegedly violated was not “clearly established.” … On analogous facts, at least one other district court has denied a motion to dismiss on the basis of qualified immunity under the “clearly established law” prong. See Armstead, 2012 WL 2577562 , at *6-*7.

Stones v. Los Angeles Community College District

572 F. Supp. 1072 · District Court, C.D. California · Sep 28, 1983

committee to be better qualified. … Having considered all of the relevant evidence in this matter, the Court concludes that plaintiff has established her prima facie case. Plaintiff, a black woman, clearly belongs to a racial minority.

Sanchez v. Lane Bryant, Inc.

123 F. Supp. 3d 1238 · District Court, C.D. California · Aug 17, 2015

“The malice necessary to defeat a qualified privilege is ‘actual malice’ which is established by a showing that the publication was motivated by hatred or ill will towards the plaintiff or by a showing that the defendant … Further, courts in California are divided as to whether managerial immunity establishes a qualified or absolute privilege.

Bardzik v. County of Orange

605 F. Supp. 2d 1076 · District Court, C.D. California · Mar 11, 2009

“Government officials who perform discretionary functions are entitled to qualified immunity only ‘insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person … This finding was clearly established at the time of the alleged retaliation. Accordingly, this Court rejects the Orange County Defendants’ argument that Bardzik’s claims are barred by qualified immunity. IV.

Santos v. COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES DEPT. OF CHILDREN

299 F. Supp. 2d 1070 · District Court, C.D. California · Jan 6, 2004

Government officials performing discretionary functions generally are entitled to qualified immunity if their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would … Thus, this Court finds plaintiff does not have a clearly established liberty interest, and defendant social workers are entitled to qualified immunity on plaintiff's Section 1983 claims.

Williams v. County of Santa Barbara

272 F. Supp. 2d 995 · District Court, C.D. California · Jul 14, 2003

Qualified immunity shields public officials from liability “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Harlow v. … Put more simply, “[i]f the law did not put the officer on notice that his conduct would be clearly unlawful, summary judgment based on qualified immunity is appropriate.” Saucier, 633 U.S. at 202, 121 S.Ct. 2151 .

C.F. v. Capistrano Unified School District

647 F. Supp. 2d 1187 · District Court, C.D. California · Jul 27, 2009

ORDER RE MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE AN AMENDED ANSWER, MOTION FOR A DETERMINATION RE QUALIFIED IMMUNITY, AND SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEFING JAMES V. SELNA, District Judge. I. … The Court denies the motion for a determination that Corbett is entitled to qualified immunity as moot, without prejudice.

Fleming v. LeFevere

423 F. Supp. 2d 1064 · District Court, C.D. California · Jan 17, 2006

LeFevere Violated Plaintiff’s Constitutional Rights, He Is Entitled To Qualified Immunity. Defendant Dr. … LeFevere also asserts that he is protected by qualified immunity because he acted within the established law at the time. Defendant Dr.

Henry v. Sanchez

923 F. Supp. 1266 · District Court, C.D. California · Apr 7, 1996

Qualified immunity shields a public officer from a suit for damages if a reasonable officer in the defendant’s position could have believed his conduct was lawful in light of clearly established law and the information the … The qualified immunity test requires a two part analysis. First, the Court must determine whether the law governing the officer’s conduct was clearly established at the time the challenged conduct occurred.

Blumberg v. Gates

144 F. Supp. 2d 1221 · District Court, C.D. California · Jun 13, 2001

Having lost on absolute immunity grounds, the Trevino defendants next sought qualified immunity. See Trevino II, 99 F.3d at 916 . … immunity” conflates the qualified immunity analysis with the underlying merits determination.

Haddad v. State of Cal.

64 F. Supp. 2d 930 · District Court, C.D. California · Aug 24, 1999

The Court clearly has subject matter jurisdiction over Haddad’s claims in this action. E. Wall Is Not Necessarily Entitled to Qualified Immunity. … “Government officials are given qualified immunity from civil liability under section 1983 ‘insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would

Salazar v. Burresch

47 F. Supp. 2d 1105 · District Court, C.D. California · Apr 28, 1999

An officer is entitled to qualified immunity if, "in light of clearly established principles governing the conduct in question, the officer objectively could have believed that his conduct was lawful.” Act Up! … While Plaintiff bears the burden of showing that the law was clearly established (Collins v.