Case law
Opinions from 1658 to today.
6,306 results
1.30s
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.
Cited 0 timesUnknownDistrict Court, E.D. California · Mar 31, 2025
(Doc. 105 at 8–12.) 17 The doctrine of qualified immunity protects government officials “from liability insofar as 18 their conduct does not violate clearly established or constitutional rights of which a reasonable … immunity grounds if the right 1 involved was not clearly established at the time of the encounter.
Cited 0 timesUnknownDistrict Court, E.D. California · Jul 20, 2020
Ordinarily, once the court 4 concludes that a right was clearly established, an officer is not entitled to qualified immunity 5 because a reasonably competent public official is charged with knowing the law governing … As discussed above in section (III)(B)(i), 15 plaintiff’s allegations, as pled, clearly establish a right barring qualified immunity.
Cited 0 timesUnknownDistrict 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.
Cited 0 timesUnknownDistrict Court, E.D. California · Aug 30, 2024
Qualified Immunity 2 The doctrine of qualified immunity protects government officials from civil liability 3 where “their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory … Alternatively, Defendant Mendoza is entitled to qualified immunity as to the failure to 16 protect claim.
Cited 0 timesUnknownDistrict Court, E.D. California · Feb 11, 2022
Qualified Immunity on Plaintiffs’ Federal Claims 7 In actions under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the doctrine 8 of qualified immunity “protects government officials ‘from 9 liability … The 19 Supreme Court reversed the district court’s denial of qualified 20 immunity because the law was not clearly established that the use 21 of deadly force in such a situation violated the decedent
Cited 0 timesUnknownDistrict 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.
Cited 0 timesUnknownDistrict Court, E.D. California · Dec 12, 2025
Therefore, the court turns to the second step of the qualified immunity 15 inquiry, whether the right was clearly established. 16 In Devereaux, the Ninth Circuit found that the right to be free … established, defendants are not entitled to dismissal on qualified immunity 23 grounds. 24 F.
Cited 0 timesUnknown38 F. Supp. 3d 1162 · District Court, E.D. California · Aug 6, 2014
Defendants make one brief reference to qualified immunity in their notice of Motion for Summary Judgment. However, nowhere else do Defendants raise or argue the issue of qualified immunity. … , is not adequate to preserve qualified immunity.
Cited 11 timesPublishedDistrict Court, E.D. California · Jun 29, 2020
not clearly established at the time 17 of the incident. … protected and qualified immunity applied); Christ v.
Cited 0 timesUnknownDistrict Court, E.D. California · Jun 4, 2025
Qualified Immunity 20 “The doctrine of qualified immunity protects government officials from liability for civil 21 … To determine whether an officer is entitled to qualified immunity, the court asks, in the 5 order it chooses, (1) whether the alleged misconduct violated a constitutional right; and 6 (2) whether the right was clearly
Cited 0 timesUnknownDistrict Court, E.D. California · Oct 11, 2019
CASE, WITH PREJUDICE, ON QUALIFIED IMMUNITY GROUNDS 14 PAUL D. … Neither do we.”).2 Instead, the 3 Ninth Circuit proceeded “straight to the second prong of the qualified immunity analysis: whether 4 a right to not face a heightened risk was ‘clearly established’ at the time” the officials
Cited 0 timesUnknownDistrict Court, E.D. California · Mar 1, 2022
that defendants are entitled to 9 qualified immunity, I do not address the merits of plaintiff’s claim. 10 Qualified immunity shields government officials from money damages unless their 11 conduct violated … “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights.”
Cited 0 timesUnknown939 F. Supp. 1465 · District Court, E.D. California · Aug 12, 1996
Although statutes generally are not applied retroactively unless the legislature clearly indicates otherwise, see California Country Club Homes Assn. v. … imposed by statute “serve a purpose that is frustrated by an immunity”). 9 .
Cited 9 timesPublishedDistrict Court, E.D. California · Nov 19, 2021
Id. at 966-67, 972-73. 18 Finding that the district court erroneously analyzed the “clearly established” prong by 19 incorporating a subjective standard, the Court of Appeals conducted its own qualified immunity 20 … “[E]ven where the clearly established legal standard requires [subjective] deliberate 23 indifference, the qualified immunity inquiry should concentrate on the objective aspects of the 24 constitutional standard.”
Cited 0 timesUnknown822 F. Supp. 2d 1048 · District Court, E.D. California · Sep 29, 2011
Sovereign immunity. … Given the Court’s holding that Plaintiffs failed to state a claim against the individual Defendants, this Court need not address the merits of Defendants’ qualified immunity defense.
Cited 6 timesPublishedDistrict Court, E.D. California · Jun 8, 2026
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 … For this reason, 10 this Court need not address the second prong of the qualified immunity analysis. See County of 11 Sacramento v.
Cited 0 timesUnknown885 F. Supp. 2d 1002 · District Court, E.D. California · Aug 7, 2012
Those reservations were established by Executive Order and were the Hoopa Reservation (established in 1876), Mission Indian Reserve (established in 1870, and revised from 1877-1889), Round Valley Reservation (established … Sovereign Immunity of the United States Salazar claims this Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction because Salazar has not waived sovereign immunity.
Cited 8 timesPublished997 F. Supp. 2d 1088 · District Court, E.D. California · Feb 18, 2014
Immunities For Trustee NDS Defendants contend that statutory immunities bar the complaint’s claims, including for breach' of fiduciary duty, against NDS given its limited role as DOT trustee. … NDS’ alleged wrongs are subject to section 2924(b) and (d) immunity. In the absence of allegations of NDS’ malice or other significant wrongdoing, section immunity 2924(d) bars purported claims against NDS.
Cited 37 timesPublished629 F. Supp. 2d 1068 · District Court, E.D. California · Apr 8, 2009
To support its section 846 immunity defense, the Government points to Ms. … The California Court of Appeals has established essential elements to qualify a land owner’s actions as wilful misconduct: “(1) actual or constructive knowledge of the peril to be apprehended, (2) actual or constructive knowledge
Cited 0 timesPublished
Ask Donna