Case law

(PC) Gordon v. Ikegbu

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

Qualified Immunity 8 I also find defendant’s argument that she is entitled to qualified immunity persuasive. … immunity defense and argues that 15 his right to constitutionally adequate medical care was clearly established.

Adams

District Court, E.D. California · Sep 30, 2025

“The doctrine of qualified 7 immunity shields officials from civil liability so long as their conduct ‘does not violate 8 clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person 9 would have … “[D]ismissal is not appropriate unless we can 14 determine, based on the complaint itself, that qualified immunity applies.”

Womack v. County of Amador

551 F. Supp. 2d 1017 · District Court, E.D. California · Mar 7, 2008

The framework for determining whether an official qualifies for Eleventh Amendment immunity in § 1983 elaims was established by the United States Supreme Court in McMillian, 520 U.S. 781 , 117 S.Ct. 1734 , 138 L.Ed.2d 1 . … In KRL, 384 F.3d at 1116-117 , the Ninth Circuit held that Riebe was entitled to qualified immunity for his approval of the January 11 warrant (i.e., the second search warrant) because it was not "so lacking in indicia of

Blue Lake Rancheria v. Lanier

106 F. Supp. 3d 1134 · District Court, E.D. California · May 13, 2015

Indeed, the cases establish that immunity bars similar methods of enforcement. See Namekagon Dev. Co. v. Bois Forte Reservation Hous. … Hollywood, 361 F.2d 517, 521 (5th Cir.1966) (“The waiver of the immunity to being sued was expressly qualified, and excluded from the waiver was the levy of any judgment, lien or attachment upon the property of the [tribe

Allen v. Woodford

544 F. Supp. 2d 1074 · District Court, E.D. California · Apr 4, 2008

. § 636 (b)(1)(A), Plaintiffs request for reconsideration may be granted if the Magistrate Judge’s Order is “clearly erroneous or contrary to law.” … It is clear that the Eleventh Amendment establishes that a federal court has no jurisdiction over any lawsuit against a state.

(PC) Morgan v. Espinoza

District Court, E.D. California · Jun 6, 2025

Qualified Immunity 2 Government officials enjoy qualified immunity from civil damages unless their 3 conduct violates “clearly established statutory or constitutional … Ordinarily, once the court 23 concludes that a right was clearly established, an officer is not entitled to qualified immunity 24 because a reasonably competent public official is charged with knowing the law governing

(PC) Flannery v. Holstein

District Court, E.D. California · May 28, 2024

Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 675. 9 The doctrine of qualified immunity “protects government officials from ‘liability for civil 10 damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or … qualified immunity and this case 9 should be dismissed because there is no “clearly established” right.

(PC) Morgan v. Adams

District Court, E.D. California · Mar 3, 2025

For the reasons discussed below, the Court agrees. 4 Government officials enjoy qualified immunity from civil damages unless their 5 conduct violates “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights … However, even if the plaintiff 4 has alleged a violation of a clearly established right, the government official is entitled to 5 qualified immunity if he could have “. . . reasonably but mistakenly believed that his

Greene v. United States

207 F. Supp. 2d 1113 · District Court, E.D. California · May 16, 2002

One must look to the nature of the exception or qualifier to determine whether the statutory scheme is permissive or mandatory with very limited exceptions. … Quite clearly, the statute does not immunize the United States from all and every construction defect no matter how one seeks to remedy the defect.

McKinney v. Fresno County Sheriff's Office

District Court, E.D. California · Jul 28, 2025

Qualified immunity 19 Starting with the qualified immunity argument brought by Defendants Mims and Hushaw, 20 “[t]he doctrine of qualified immunity protects government officials … right and that right was “clearly established” at the 11 time of the defendant’s action.”

Sanborn v. United States

453 F. Supp. 651 · District Court, E.D. California · Sep 19, 1977

However, plaintiffs offer no authority for the startling idea that the doctrine of pendent or ancillary jurisdiction may be utilized by a district court to avoid the well established requirement of a waiver of sovereign immunity … These allegations do not clearly bring the plaintiffs’ claims within the immunity.

(PC)Calloway v. Youssee

District Court, E.D. California · Sep 20, 2024

Qualified Immunity 26 The doctrine of qualified immunity protects government officials from civil liability 27 where “their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory … “The second 9 prong of the qualified-immunity analysis asks whether the right in question was ‘clearly 10 established’ at the time of the violation.” Id. at 656 (citation omitted).

Kastis v. Alvarado

District Court, E.D. California · May 13, 2020

Qualified Immunity Does Not Apply8 12 “The doctrine of qualified immunity shields officials from civil liability so long as their 13 conduct does not violate clearly established statutory … a statutory or 19 constitutional right; and (2) the right at issue was “clearly established.”

Rouser v. White

630 F. Supp. 2d 1165 · District Court, E.D. California · May 15, 2009

Moving to the second prong of the qualified immunity analysis, the Constitutional right was clearly established at the time such that a reasonable official in White’s position would have understood his actions to violate … Defendant has tendered no evidence or argument that his conduct may have been reasonable in light of the clearly established law at the time. Thus he is not entitled to qualified immunity on this claim. 3.

Castillo v. Goldsborough

District Court, E.D. California · Mar 28, 2025

(ECF No. 22-1 at 8.) 18 Qualified immunity shields officials from civil liability where a reasonable officer would not have 19 known that his conduct violated a clearly established right. Anderson v. … Clearly Established Law 18 Defendant argues that even if his entry could be deemed a Fourth Amendment violation, 19 he is still entitled to qualified immunity because he did not violate clearly

Anthony Herrera v. Lynch, et al.

District Court, E.D. California · Jul 28, 2026

The Ninth Circuit found that the defendants were entitled to 23 qualified immunity because at the time the plaintiff was on contraband watch, the law was not 24 clearly established as to whether the conditions plaintiff … Qualified Immunity 18 “The doctrine of qualified immunity protects government officials ‘from liability for civil 19 damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly

Haygood v. Younger

527 F. Supp. 808 · District Court, E.D. California · Nov 30, 1981

This qualified immunity was extended to prison officials in Procunier v. Navarette, 434 U.S. 555 , 98 S.Ct. 855 , 55 L.Ed.2d 24 (1978). The immunity is properly characterized as an affirmative defense (Gomez v. … The better view is that the section 1983 defendant has both the burden of pleading and of proving his or her qualified immunity.

Greenwood

District Court, E.D. California · Oct 27, 2025

The Officers are Not Entitled to Qualified Immunity 7 Defendants assert they are entitled to qualified immunity with respect to plaintiff’s first 8 amendment retaliation claim because there is no clearly … The doctrine of qualified immunity protects government 12 officials from liability insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established rights of which 13 a reasonable person would have known. Pearson v.

McClure v. Chen

246 F. Supp. 3d 1286 · District Court, E.D. California · Mar 28, 2017

immunity grounds. … No. 28) is denied without prejudice to its renewal as to the merits of plaintiffs claim and on qualified immunity grounds 4 ; 3.

Timbisha Shoshone Tribe v. United States Department of Interior

290 F.R.D. 589 · District Court, E.D. California · Apr 9, 2013

The Tribe organized itself under a written Constitution that establishes the General Council as the Tribe’s supreme governing body. The General Council has delegated some of its powers to a five-member Tribal Council. … The Federal Government may not ignore or reject the results of a tribal election that clearly states the will of a sovereign Indian nation.