Case law

Wallisa v. City of Hesparia

369 F. Supp. 3d 990 · District Court, C.D. California · Mar 20, 2019

"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 … The qualified immunity analysis involves two distinct steps, determining: (1) whether the facts alleged by a plaintiff make out a violation of a constitutional right; and (2) if so, whether the right was "clearly established

Timothy Ryan v. Brant Putnam

District Court, C.D. California · Mar 21, 2022

“Qualified immunity is applicable unless the official’s conduct violated a clearly established constitutional right.” Pearson, 555 U.S. at 232. 1. … Defendants also argue that “|t|he absence of clearly established law on the temporal nexus issue |] entitles Drs. de Virgilio and Lewis to qualified immunity.” Mot. at 41-42.

C.F. v. Capistrano Unified School District

656 F. Supp. 2d 1190 · District Court, C.D. California · Sep 15, 2009

established’ to preclude qualified immunity.” … Thus, the doctrine of qualified immunity looks to whether there was a clearly established right in issue.

Fowler v. Block

2 F. Supp. 2d 1268 · District Court, C.D. California · May 15, 1998

(2) Was such right clearly established at the time of the alleged offense? (3) If there is a clearly established right, is the issue of qualified immunity [ ] properly addressed in a motion for summary judgment? … Under the two-part test, there'is qualified immunity if: (1) the law governing the official’s conduct was “clearly established;” and (2) under that “clearly established” law, a reasonable officer could have believed that

Rodriguez v. County of Los Angeles

96 F. Supp. 3d 990 · District Court, C.D. California · May 29, 2014

immunity to officers who used Tasers in which courts held that Taser usage was not “clearly established.” … These theories arose from clearly established constitutional violations which, if proven, would disqualify a defendant from qualified immunity protections. Hope v.

Blair Hays v. J. Gastelo

District Court, C.D. California · May 4, 2021

Qualified Immunity 20 Courts recognize qualified immunity “to balance competing values: not only the 21] importance of a damages remedy to protect the rights of citizens . . . but also ‘the need to protect … As 28 such, “[o]nce the official pleads qualified immunity, the burden is on the plaintiff to prove two elements: (1) that the right was violated; and (2) that the right was clearly established at the 2| time

Burt v. Carlson

752 F. Supp. 346 · District Court, C.D. California · Oct 12, 1990

There are two kinds of immunity. One is absolute immunity, and the other is qualified or good-faith immunity. … Under qualified immunity, government officials are shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would

Fazaga v. Federal Bureau of Investigation

885 F. Supp. 2d 978 · District Court, C.D. California · Aug 14, 2012

The doctrine of qualified immunity was established to protect government officials “from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate any clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of … The Agent Defendants argue that they are entitled to qualified immunity because it was not clearly established that Plaintiffs were “aggrieved persons.”

Massey v. Banning Unified School District

256 F. Supp. 2d 1090 · District Court, C.D. California · Mar 28, 2003

If a violation has been alleged, a defendant is not entitled to qualified immunity if the right was clearly established at the time of the violation. Id. at 200-201, 121 S.Ct. 2151 . … In their motion, Defendants focus their qualified immunity argument on the contention that the right to be free of sexual orientation-based discrimination is not clearly established because there is no “closely analogous

Doe v. Beard

63 F. Supp. 3d 1159 · District Court, C.D. California · Nov 18, 2014

In the alternative, if there was a constitutional violation, Defendants argue that they are entitled to qualified immunity from suit because the right was not clearly established. (Id. at 14.) 1. … Qualified Immunity Defendants assert qualified immunity as a defense.

Corcoran v. Fletcher

160 F. Supp. 2d 1085 · District Court, C.D. California · Jul 26, 2001

Determining whether a public official is entitled to qualified immunity, then, “requires a two-part inquiry: (1) Was the law governing the state official’s conduct clearly established? … Clearly Established Law “[W]hether the law was clearly established ... is a pure question of law for the court to decide.” Mendoza v. Block, 27 F.3d 1357, 1360 (9th Cir.1994).

Trevino v. Gates

798 F. Supp. 621 · District Court, C.D. California · Aug 7, 1992

established law. … Under Harlow , the council members would be entitled to qualified immunity for acts in the course of their duties “insofar as their conduct [did] not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which

Hernandez v. Gates

100 F. Supp. 2d 1209 · District Court, C.D. California · Jun 20, 2000

QUALIFIED IMMUNITY A. … The City Council defendants claim that there is no clearly established law indicating that their actions were unlawful, and that they therefore have qualified immunity from suit in this case.

Rabinovitz v. City of L. A.

287 F. Supp. 3d 933 · District Court, C.D. California · Mar 2, 2018

Qualified immunity "shields officials from civil liability so long as their conduct 'does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.' " Mullenix v. … Qualified Immunity Defendants' qualified immunity defense fails to bar the First Amendment claim.

Brown v. Grove

647 F. Supp. 2d 1178 · District Court, C.D. California · Jul 16, 2009

Defendants’ Qualified Immunity Defense Is Denied Defendants have moved to dismiss the Complaint in its entirety on the ground that they are entitled to qualified immunity because they did not violate clearly established federal … To be protected under qualified immunity, a government employee must show that the right the plaintiff complains of was not clearly established at the time the defendants acted or, assuming that it was clearly established

Hawkins v. Baca

114 F. Supp. 2d 987 · District Court, C.D. California · Sep 22, 2000

Public officials sued under § 1983 are entitled to qualified immunity if: (1) the constitutional right they allegedly violated was not clearly established at the time of the violation; or (2) a reasonable official would have … The question was whether that policy violated clearly established law.

Bell v. City of Los Angeles

835 F. Supp. 2d 836 · District Court, C.D. California · Dec 20, 2011

establish constitutional precedent on questions that do not frequently arise in cases in which a qualified immunity defense is unavailable; and when few judicial resources would be conserved by considering only the “clearly … “An officer conducting a search is entitled to qualified immunity where clearly established law does not show that the search violated the Fourth Amendment.” Pearson v.

Goleta Union Elementary School District v. Ordway

166 F. Supp. 2d 1287 · District Court, C.D. California · Oct 12, 2001

Government officials performing discretionary functions are entitled to qualified immunity when “their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have … /Portland, 988 F.2d at 872 . 14 Although the counter-claimants have met the burden of showing the right at issue was clearly established, Rigby nevertheless may be entitled to qualified immunity if she can show that a reasonable

MONTEILH v. County of Los Angeles

820 F. Supp. 2d 1081 · District Court, C.D. California · Jul 12, 2011

Qualified Immunity Qualified immunity shields public officials sued in their individual capacity for monetary damages, unless their conduct violates “clearly established” law that a reasonable public officer would have known … “whether the right was clearly established.”

Cunningham v. Gates

989 F. Supp. 1256 · District Court, C.D. California · Dec 15, 1997

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 rights … The threshold determination of whether the law is clearly established is a question of law for the court. [Citations.]