Case law
Opinions from 1658 to today.
6,306 results
0.89s
District Court, E.D. California · Jan 10, 2022
City of Clovis, 943 F.3d 1260 (9th Cir. 13 2019), the Court finds Defendant is entitled to qualified 14 immunity as it was not clearly established in 2013 that 15 Defendant’s conduct … Accordingly, Defendant Channon 5 High is entitled to qualified immunity and her request for 6 summary judgment is GRANTED.
Cited 0 timesUnknown491 F. Supp. 466 · District Court, E.D. California · Jun 6, 1980
After examining the allegations in the complaint, this court declared: *476 These allegations do not clearly bring the plaintiffs’ claims within the immunity. … First, the preparation and presentation of proof establishing the applicability of section 702c immunity are costs intended to be minimized by the broad expression of federal non-liability.
Cited 10 timesPublishedDistrict Court, E.D. California · Sep 13, 2022
to the plaintiff, show no violation of a constitutional right, 3 or no violation of a right that is clearly established in law.” … mailroom 4 supervisor that the jury must determine before the court can rule on qualified immunity. 5 As argued by plaintiff, this court already identified such clearly established law in 6 evaluating all three
Cited 0 timesUnknownDistrict Court, E.D. California · Jul 17, 2023
Plaintiff has failed to establish 2 that the Defendant’s actions amount to deliberate indifference, and he is therefore entitled to 3 qualified immunity under the first prong. … Qualified Immunity 17 Defendant argues that he is entitled to qualified immunity. 18 “Government officials enjoy qualified immunity from civil damages unless their
Cited 0 timesUnknownDistrict Court, E.D. California · Jul 16, 2025
Qualified Immunity 24 Government officials enjoy qualified immunity from civil damages unless their 25 conduct violates “clearly established statutory or constitutional … Ordinarily, once the court 17 concludes that a right was clearly established, an officer is not entitled to qualified immunity 18 because a reasonably competent public official is charged with knowing the law governing
Cited 0 timesUnknownDistrict Court, E.D. California · Apr 20, 2026
immunity 11 against that claim unless it was clearly established that his actions were unconstitutional. … immunity based on their 23 qualified immunity.
Cited 0 timesUnknownDistrict Court, E.D. California · Feb 20, 2025
(ECF No. 139, pp. 12-13). 17 Government officials enjoy qualified immunity from civil damages unless their conduct 18 violates “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights … established law’ in the Ninth Circuit, for qualified immunity purposes.’
Cited 0 timesUnknownWelchen v. Cnty. of Sacramento
343 F. Supp. 3d 924 · District Court, E.D. California · Oct 24, 2018
Although sovereign immunity generally does not extend to local governmental bodies, Monell , 436 U.S. at 690 , 98 S.Ct. 2018 , local officials qualify for sovereign immunity when they act on behalf of the state, rather than … At issue in Cortez was a sheriff-established policy to put inmates with certain gang affiliations in segregated units. Id. at 1187-88 .
Cited 0 timesPublishedDistrict Court, E.D. California · Sep 5, 2025
Defendants’ Qualified Immunity Argument 2 Defendants argue they are entitled to qualified immunity because it was not clearly 3 established as of December 2020 that placing the sign on plaintiff’s … A 13 defendant is entitled to qualified immunity “unless a plaintiff pleads facts showing (1) that the 14 official violated a statutory or constitutional right, and (2) that the right was “clearly established” 15 at
Cited 0 timesUnknownDibbern v. City of Bakersfield
District Court, E.D. California · Jan 13, 2025
denial/delay 9 of medical care under the doctrine of qualified immunity. 10 Qualified immunity protects government officials from liability for § 1983 claims unless they 11 violated a federal right … established” such that qualified 9 immunity does not apply.
Cited 0 timesUnknownDistrict Court, E.D. California · Aug 8, 2025
violations, he has not shown that defendants violated his 20 clearly established rights. … clearly established at the 27 time of the incident.
Cited 0 timesUnknownDistrict Court, E.D. California · Oct 11, 2019
No. 81), vacating and remanding this court’s previous denial of 22 qualified immunity to defendant Igbinosa. … Neither do we.”).2 Instead, the 9 Ninth Circuit proceeded “straight to the second prong of the qualified immunity analysis: 10 whether a right to not face a heightened risk was ‘clearly established’ at the time” the
Cited 0 timesUnknownDistrict Court, E.D. California · Sep 30, 2019
Qualified immunity “protects government 23 officials ‘from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly 24 established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would … right”; and (2) “whether the right at issue 1 was ‘clearly established’ at the time of defendant’s alleged misconduct.”
Cited 0 timesUnknown(PC) Good v. California State Prison - Solano
District Court, E.D. California · Jun 2, 2023
ECF No. 24 at 7-8. 18 “The doctrine of qualified immunity protects government officials from liability for civil 19 damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established … To determine whether an officer is entitled to qualified immunity, the court asks, in the 4 order it chooses, (1) whether the alleged misconduct violated a constitutional right; and 5 (2) whether the right was clearly
Cited 0 timesUnknown(PC) Suggett v. Solano County Justice Center
District Court, E.D. California · May 12, 2025
There are two prongs in the qualified- 17 immunity inquiry: “(1) whether ‘the facts alleged show the official’s conduct violated a 18 constitutional right; and (2) if so, whether the right was clearly established’ as of … As for Valdez and Livingston, I deny defendants’ 3 | motion to dismiss on the basis of qualified immunity because plaintiff has sufficiently pled the 4 | denial of a clearly established constitutional right. 5
Cited 0 timesUnknownDistrict Court, E.D. California · Aug 19, 2022
To find the 3 || defendant is not entitled to qualified immunity, the court must find it was not clearly established 4 | that his conduct would violate the Fourth Amendment. Saucier v. … can rule on qualified 13 | immunity.”)
Cited 0 timesUnknownDistrict Court, E.D. California · Sep 4, 2019
Instead, we go straight to the second prong of the qualified immunity analysis: whether a right to not face a heightened 11 risk was “clearly established” at the time. … Forsyth, 472 U.S. 511, 526 (1985) (qualified immunity “is an immunity 23 from suit rather than a mere defense to liability.”).
Cited 0 timesUnknownDistrict Court, E.D. California · Mar 4, 2025
, that qualified immunity 24 applies.” … There are two prongs in the 28 qualified-immunity inquiry: “(1) whether ‘the facts alleged show the official’s conduct violated a 1 constitutional right; and (2) if so, whether the right was clearly established’ as of
Cited 0 timesUnknownDistrict Court, E.D. California · Mar 27, 2023
rights and there is no clearly 20 established law on point. … Qualified immunity shields government officials from liability insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have 26 known.
Cited 0 timesUnknownDistrict Court, E.D. California · Sep 6, 2022
Constitutional violation notwithstanding, the qualified immunity analysis 2 || must inquire into whether a reasonable defendant would have known that the specific actions in 3 || this case were unlawful based on the “clearly … Courts typically rely on “[p]recedent involving similar facts” to 7 || determine the parameters of clearly established law. /d. (citation omitted).
Cited 0 timesUnknown
Ask Donna