Case law

Hollett v. Browning

711 F. Supp. 1009 · District Court, E.D. California · Nov 30, 1988

immunity. … Clearly, 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and 28 U.S.C. § 1343 have no relevance to this action against the United States and federal employees. Tripati v.

(PC) King v. Cappel

District 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.”).

(PC) Shabazz v. Beard

District 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

United States v. Iron Mountain Mines, Inc.

881 F. Supp. 1432 · District Court, E.D. California · Mar 31, 1995

Congress clearly sought to ensure beyond doubt that sovereign immunity would protect the government from ‘any’ liability associated with flood control.” Id. at 608, 106 S.Ct. at 3122 (citation omitted). … Another theme running through the cases recognizing remedial immunity is that since the statute does not clearly authorize a cause of action against the government acting in a remedial or regulatory capacity, and since waivers

(PC)Davis v. Kelso

District Court, E.D. California · Nov 20, 2019

established. … Plaintiff's Eighth Amendment claim against defendants based on exposure to 2 Valley Fever is dismissed with prejudice on qualified immunity grounds; and 3 4.

Sandoval

District Court, E.D. California · Mar 23, 2026

Even if the plaintiff has alleged a 13 violation of a clearly established right, the official is protected by qualified immunity if he 14 “reasonably but mistakenly believed that his . . . conduct did not violate that … The circuit also held that, even assuming a 16 constitutional violation, officials did not violate clearly established rights and were entitled to 17 qualified immunity. Id. at 1210.

(PC) Roberson v. Manasrah

District Court, E.D. California · Oct 21, 2019

Defendants argue that because it was not clearly established that 27 prisoners had a right to be free from the risk of exposure to valley fever, defendant Pfeiffer is 28 entitled to qualified immunity on plaintiff’s Eighth … Katz, 533 U.S. 2 194, 201 (2001) (establishing the two-part inquiry for qualified immunity: (1) whether the 3 alleged facts violate the Constitution, and (2) if so, whether the constitutional right at issue was 4 clearly

Beentjes v. Placer County Air Pollution Control District

254 F. Supp. 2d 1159 · District Court, E.D. California · Mar 27, 2003

Nevertheless, districts which qualify under section 44223 are empowered to impose the state vehicle surcharge at their own discretion. … Each district is granted the power to establish its own regulatory system for reducing emission of air contaminants. Id. § 40709.

In Re Bomb Disaster at Roseville, Cal., on April 28

438 F. Supp. 769 · District Court, E.D. California · Sep 19, 1977

from tort actions and to establish novel and unprecedented governmental liability.” 352 U.S. at 319 , 77 S.Ct. at 377 . … (f) Any claim for damages caused by the imposition or establishment of a quarantine by the United States. (g) Repealed.

Baday v. County of Kings

District Court, E.D. California · Jul 10, 2025

that Plaintiff has not met the high bar of 26 establishing that amendment adding the affirmative defense of qualified immunity would be futile. 27 While “[t]he test for futility is identical to the one used when considering … immunity, the Court will grant Defendants’ motion to 25 amend to add qualified immunity as an affirmative defense as to Defendant Greene only. 26 D.

(PC) Wahl v. Sutton

District Court, E.D. California · Sep 5, 2019

Qualified Immunity 12 Qualified immunity protects “government officials . . . from liability for civil damages 13 insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established … Rather, the Court finds that, viewed in the requisite case-specific 25 context, Defendant did not violate a clearly established constitutional right and is entitled to 26 qualified immunity.

Shelley v. County of San Joaquin

996 F. Supp. 2d 921 · District Court, E.D. California · Feb 7, 2014

This Court held Sheriff Moore was entitled to qualified immunity because Plaintiffs’ asserted constitutionally protected property interest in the remains of their relative was not “ ‘clearly established’ such that a ‘reasonable … immunity.

(PC) Elias v. Kinross

District Court, E.D. California · Oct 25, 2022

To determine 9 whether an officer is entitled to qualified immunity, the court considers: (1) whether there has 10 been a violation of a constitutional right; and (2) whether the officers' conduct violated “clearly 11 … At the other extreme, however, when determining 15 whether the right at issue has been clearly established, the court may not “define clearly 16 established law at a high level of generality.” See Kisela v.

Gettings

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

Qualified Immunity 2 Defendants also contend they are entitled to qualified immunity for Plaintiff’s 3 First and Second Causes of Action. … Defendants 5 are entitled to qualified immunity if they establish that they reasonably believed they 6 had probable cause on July 13 and July 20. Rosenbaum v.

Thompson v. City of Shasta Lake

314 F. Supp. 2d 1017 · District Court, E.D. California · Apr 27, 2004

The defendants cite to various state laws to show that they are entitled to qualified immunity. … While arguments might be made concerning qualified immunity where state law protects accused conduct, defendants do not make them, and it is hardly this court's duty to make them for defendants.

Barbosa v. Shasta County

District Court, E.D. California · Feb 7, 2023

a reasonable officer would not have known 20 that his alleged conduct violated clearly established law. … Defendants put forth that 27 “whether the violative nature of particular conduct is clearly 28 established” is a question to be answered “not as a broad general 1 proposition,” but with reference

United States v. Kernen Constr.

349 F. Supp. 3d 988 · District Court, E.D. California · Oct 16, 2018

State regulation is permitted only to the extent that Congress has clearly authorized such regulation. Id. at 180 n.1, 108 S.Ct. 1704 . … Plaintiff, as part of its case-in-chief, must establish that defendants' actions were the proximate cause of its injuries. See, e.g. , Sierra Pac. Indus. , 879 F.Supp.2d at 1104 .

(PS) Stacker v. CDCR

District Court, E.D. California · Oct 8, 2019

(quoting Ashcroft, 563 U.S. at 742); Mullenix, 136 S.Ct. at 308; Sheehan, 135 S.Ct. at 1776 (“Qualified immunity is no immunity at all if ‘clearly established’ law can simply be defined as the right to be free from unreasonable … That is the entirety of Plaintiffs’ consideration of the topic of qualified immunity – in other words, there is no discussion of clearly-established law whatsoever.

(PC) Samuels v. Ahlin

District Court, E.D. California · Oct 16, 2019

on qualified immunity grounds. … Neither do we.”).3 Instead, the 5 Ninth Circuit proceeded “straight to the second prong of the qualified immunity analysis: whether 6 a right to not face a heightened risk was ‘clearly established’ at the time” the officials

Hyatt v. Brown

District Court, E.D. California · Aug 30, 2019

Qualified Immunity 7 The doctrine of qualified immunity protects government officials from civil liability 8 where “their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory … A right is clearly established where it is “sufficiently clear that every reasonable 1 1229 (quoting Reichle v.