Case law

Redick v. Sonora Police Department

District Court, E.D. California · Mar 17, 2021

City of Orange, 4 485 F.3d 463, 476 (9th Cir. 2007) (Stating it was “clearly established long ago that an officer 5 may not conduct a warrantless arrest absent probable cause.”). … establish 17 defamation under state law.”

Milner v. Bolger

546 F. Supp. 375 · District Court, E.D. California · Aug 26, 1982

What “independent establishment” means in this context is somewhat difficult to determine, since “independent establishment” is elsewhere defined as [A]n establishment in the executive branch (other than the United States … . § 201 , these statutes are clearly in pari materia. It is fair to infer, therefore, that Congress intended the Postal Service to have greater independence than that of other independent establishments. 3 .

Grason Electric Co. v. Sacramento Municipal Utility District

526 F. Supp. 276 · District Court, E.D. California · Nov 30, 1981

The distinction, as drawn herein, is critical inasmuch as a plurality of the United States Supreme Court has decided that the state action immunity doctrine established by Parker v. … While a subordinate governmental unit’s claim to Parker immunity is not as readily established as the same claim by a state government sued as such, we agree with the Court of Appeals that an adequate state mandate for anticompetitive

Bessard v. California Community Colleges

867 F. Supp. 1454 · District Court, E.D. California · Oct 14, 1994

Immunity The District contends that it is entitled to qualified immunity from plaintiffs’ RFRA claims. … Accordingly, the District is not entitled to qualified immunity. D.

Buzayan v. City of Davis

927 F. Supp. 2d 893 · District Court, E.D. California · Feb 25, 2013

Applicable Immunities. … Having established that § 820.2 confers immunity under the facts of this matter, we now turn to the second immunity provision cited by Defendants, California Government Code § 821.6.

(PS) Hanible v. County of Solano Sheriff's Office

District Court, E.D. California · Sep 5, 2025

That argument was not clearly presented in 12 Defendants’ brief two-page discussion of qualified immunity. … violation, 15 or no violation of a clearly established right.”

(PC) Witkin v. Thomas

District Court, E.D. California · Jul 2, 2025

Qualified Immunity 2 “In § 1983 actions, qualified immunity protects government officials from liability for 3 civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly … did not violate any 8 clearly established law.

Mansourian v. Board of Regents

816 F. Supp. 2d 869 · District Court, E.D. California · Aug 3, 2011

Qualified Immunity “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 … entitled to qualified immunity.

(PC) Barth v. Montejo

District Court, E.D. California · Nov 29, 2022

an equal-protection claim;” and 22 (4) defendant “is entitled to qualified immunity.” … Qualified Immunity 11 Defendant argues he is entitled to qualified immunity because the medical care he 12 provided was objectively reasonable and he did not violate any clearly

Oyarzo v. Tuolumne Fire District

955 F. Supp. 2d 1038 · District Court, E.D. California · Jul 1, 2013

Qualified immunity shields government officials performing discretionary functions from liability for civil damages unless their conduct violates clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable … Saucier established a two-step inquiry for determining whether an official is entitled to qualified immunity. See Pearson, 555 U.S. at 232 , 129 S.Ct. 808 ; Saucier, 533 *1083 U.S. at 201, 121 S.Ct. 2151 .

Willis v. Mullins

517 F. Supp. 2d 1206 · District Court, E.D. California · Sep 25, 2007

the officer is entitled to only qualified immunity”). … Qualified immunity on this issue can not be determined at this time. 2.

(HC) Griffin v. Foulk

District Court, E.D. California · Aug 29, 2019

Only Supreme Court precedent 27 may constitute “clearly established Federal law,” but circuit law has persuasive value regarding 28 what law is “clearly established” and what constitutes “unreasonable application” of … The question at this stage is whether the state 13 court reasonably applied clearly established federal law to the facts before it. Id. at 181-82.

(PC) Moody v. Gonzalez

District Court, E.D. California · Jun 17, 2025

immunity, reflecting the lack of clearly established law. … Mar. 21, 2025) (granting defendants 17 qualified immunity because it was not clearly established that they could not deploy 18 approximately four tear gas grenade devices into a group of fighting inmates who were 19

Torres

District Court, E.D. California · Mar 4, 2026

Qualified Immunity 28 Defendant Torres argues that she is entitled to qualified immunity. 1 “Government officials enjoy qualified immunity from civil damages unless their … of the action, assessed in light of the legal rules that were clearly established at the 9 time it was taken.”

(PC) J'Weial v. CDCR

District Court, E.D. California · Feb 20, 2025

The undersigned 7 then will only address defendant’s arguments pertaining to the second step in the qualified 8 immunity inquiry, i.e., whether any such right was not clearly established at the time of the 9 alleged … Defendant concludes that the absence of Supreme Court or Ninth Circuit 24 precedent addressing this scenario establishes that the right was not clearly established and that 25 qualified immunity applies.

(HC) Stephen v. Matteson

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

However, courts may look to circuit law “to ascertain 16 whether . . . the particular point in issue is clearly established by Supreme Court precedent.” 17 Marshall v. … Discussion 6 The California Supreme Court’s denial of this claim cannot be considered objectively 7 unreasonable in light of clearly established federal law.

Fobbs v. Holy Cross Health System Corp.

789 F. Supp. 1054 · District Court, E.D. California · Mar 16, 1992

As the Court noted, Reliance on the objective reasonableness of an official’s conduct, as measured by reference to clearly established law, should avoid excessive disruption of government and permit the resolution of many … Consequently, plaintiff argues that for defendants to qualify for immunity, their entire conduct must meet the standards set forth in 42 U.S.C. §§ 11111-11152 .

(PC) Cox v. Bal

District Court, E.D. California · Dec 4, 2024

clearly established law. … Plaintiff has thus failed to plausibly 2 plead that defendants violated a clearly established right. 3 As the Supreme Court has taught us, qualified immunity 4 protects “all but

Denney v. Drug Enforcement Administration

508 F. Supp. 2d 815 · District Court, E.D. California · Aug 15, 2007

Qualified Immunity Defendants also argue that they are entitled to qualified immunity. … Accordingly, the defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity. B.

Larramendy v. Newton

994 F. Supp. 1211 · District Court, E.D. California · Feb 23, 1998

It is also established that false affidavits cannot support probable cause. See Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154, 155 , 98 S.Ct. 2674 , 57 L.Ed.2d 667 (1978). … The issue here must be distinguished from statutes providing qualified immunity. Such statutes, while they heighten the standard of proof required, nonetheless, provide a plaintiff with an opportunity to prevail. .