Case law

Campos v. City of Merced

709 F. Supp. 2d 944 · District Court, E.D. California · Apr 28, 2010

Qualified Immunity Qualified immunity shields government officials “from liability from civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable … “If the law did not put the [defendant] on notice that [his] conduct would be clearly unlawful, summary judgment based on qualified immunity is appropriate.” Id., at 202, 121 S.Ct. 2151 .

Sanders v. City of Fresno

551 F. Supp. 2d 1149 · District Court, E.D. California · Apr 3, 2008

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 … If the officer could have reasonably, but mistakenly, believed that his conduct did not violate a clearly established constitutional right, then the officer will receive qualified immunity.

Equitable Life Assurance Society of United States v. Mischo

363 F. Supp. 2d 1239 · District Court, E.D. California · Feb 14, 2005

SOVEREIGN IMMUNITY “The United States is a sovereign, and, as such, is immune from suit unless it has expressly waived such immunity and consented to be sued.” Gilbert v. DaGrossa, 756 F.2d 1455, 1458 (9th Cir.1985). … Therefore, pursuant to the express terms of the statute, a wrongful levy may be established, and the United States’ sovereign immunity is waived, if three prerequisites are established: 1) the party asserting the wrongful

I.K. Ex Rel. E.K. v. Sylvan Union School District

681 F. Supp. 2d 1179 · District Court, E.D. California · Jan 20, 2010

violates clearly established federal law, here the due process clause of the fourteenth amendment.”). … ’s claim of qualified immunity.”

Lyons v. BUSI

566 F. Supp. 2d 1172 · District Court, E.D. California · Aug 22, 2008

Government officials enjoy qualified immunity from civil damages unless their conduct violates “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Harlow v. … However, even if the plaintiff has alleged a violation of a clearly established right, the government official is entitled to qualified immunity if he could have “... reasonably but mistakenly believed that his ... conduct

Flores v. Von Kleist

739 F. Supp. 2d 1236 · District Court, E.D. California · Sep 10, 2010

To defeat a claim of qualified immunity, the plaintiff must show that the law was clearly established at the time of the violation of the plaintiffs statutory or constitutional rights, such that a reasonably competent public … Determining whether a public official is entitled to qualified immunity requires a two-part inquiry: (1) Was the law governing the state official’s conduct clearly established?

Goodwin v. State Farm General Insurance Company

District Court, E.D. California · Jun 28, 2023

Stahl, 254 F.3d 845 (9th Cir. 2001) (dismissal required of in forma pauperis 11 proceedings which seek monetary relief from immune defendants); Cato v. … Ctr., 675 F.3d 1233, 1237 (9th Cir. 2012) (“To establish a prima facie case for 19 failure to accommodate under the ADA, Samper must show that (1) [s]he is disabled within the 20 meaning of the ADA; (2) [s]he is a qualified

Foster v. CITY OF PRESNO

392 F. Supp. 2d 1140 · District Court, E.D. California · Jul 12, 2005

These two questions both fall under the rubric of qualified immunity. The doctrine of qualified immunity promotes public service by eliminating the risk of personal liability for official decisions. Harlow v. … If there is a genuine issue of material fact, the constitutional violation is assumed and the next question is whether the right was clearly established at the time. 2.

Mansourian v. Bd. of Regents of the Univ. of Ca

757 F. Supp. 2d 1030 · District Court, E.D. California · Dec 8, 2010

Qualified Immunity Defendants contend that even if there are triable issues of fact regarding whether a constitutional violation occurred, they are entitled to qualified immunity because they did not violate a clearly established … “Government officials who perform discretionary functions generally are entitled to qualified immunity from liability for civil damages ‘insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional

(PC) Zaiza v. Clark

District Court, E.D. California · Dec 9, 2021

“Qualified immunity shields government officials 28 from civil damages liability unless the official violated a statutory or constitutional right that was 1 clearly established at the time of the challenged conduct.” … immunity 13 grounds because facts necessary to establish qualified immunity generally must often be shown 14 by matters outside the complaint.

Bronco Wine Co. v. United States Department of Treasury

997 F. Supp. 1318 · District Court, E.D. California · Aug 1, 1997

Creighton, 483 U.S. 635, 638 , 107 S.Ct. 3034 , 97 L.Ed.2d 523 (1987), the Supreme Court made clear that a government official performing discretionary functions is immune from civil suit unless he violates a clearly established … Thus, whether a defendant is entitled to qualified immunity involves two distinct inquiries: (1) was the right that was violated “clearly established”; and (2) did the defendant act reasonably from an objective standpoint

(PC) Penton v. Hubard

District Court, E.D. California · Aug 12, 2021

Immunity 7 “Qualified immunity shields government officials from civil damages liability unless the 8 official violated a statutory or constitutional right that was clearly established at the time of the … immunity because it 19 was clearly established that an inmate has the right to be free from retaliation.

Walsh v. Tehachapi Unified School District

827 F. Supp. 2d 1107 · District Court, E.D. California · Oct 28, 2011

Qualified Immunity The Court notes that Kirby, Haight, Kabonic, and Feehan maintain that they are all entitled to qualified immunity. (Doc. 8 at 16-17.) … Qualified immunity shields government officials from liability for civil damages, “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established [federal] statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would

Goodwin v. State Farm General Insurance Company

District Court, E.D. California · Apr 10, 2023

Stahl, 254 F.3d 845 (9th Cir. 2001) (dismissal required of in forma pauperis 27 proceedings which seek monetary relief from immune … ; (2) they were qualified for 24 the position; (3) they suffered an adverse employment action; and (4) similarly situated 25 individuals outside her protected class were treated more favorably.); Samper v.

Jp Ex Rel. Balderas v. City of Porterville

801 F. Supp. 2d 965 · District Court, E.D. California · Jul 6, 2011

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 … Qualified Immunity Alternatively, the Court believes that qualified immunity is appropriate.

Sosa v. Hiraoka

714 F. Supp. 1100 · District Court, E.D. California · Nov 9, 1988

Eleventh Amendment Immunity. In Stones v. … The allegations contained in the amended complaint, as set forth supra, are clearly new and distinct occurrences.

Great American Surplus Lines Insurance v. Ace Oil Co.

120 F.R.D. 533 · District Court, E.D. California · Mar 2, 1988

The attorney-client privilege clearly qualifies as a privilege covered by Fed.R.Evid. 501, so the court applies state law as the controlling rule of law. … Hall establishes Frank B.

Kern-Tulare Water District v. City of Bakersfield

634 F. Supp. 656 · District Court, E.D. California · Mar 31, 1986

Such results were clearly contemplated by the LGAA. … The test for establishing state action immunity is thoroughly laid out in Hallie and the above-cited authority. None of the cases uses the governmental/proprietary distinction as a basis for decision.

Hardesty v. Sacramento Metro. Air Quality Mgmt. Dist.

307 F. Supp. 3d 1010 · District Court, E.D. California · Mar 31, 2018

Thus, Dickinson is not entitled to absolute immunity. 2. Qualified Immunity Defendants also contend they are entitled to qualified immunity. … Renewed JMOL Mot. at 63. a) Standard Qualified immunity "protects government officials 'from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of

Timbisha Shoshone Tribe v. Kennedy

687 F. Supp. 2d 1171 · District Court, E.D. California · Nov 3, 2009

Beck, *1179 among others, were “improperly enrolled individuals” who do not qualify for membership in the Tribe. … While tribal officials who act beyond the scope of their authority may not be protected by sovereign immunity, Plaintiffs fail to establish that this Court has the authority to determine which faction is the current, legitimate