Case law
Opinions from 1658 to today.
6,306 results
0.34s
Everett H. ex rel. Havey v. Dry Creek Joint Elementary School District
5 F. Supp. 3d 1184 · District Court, E.D. California · Mar 26, 2014
Although State Defendants also claim that Torlakson is entitled to qualified immunity in any event, given the pleadings deficiencies of the Complaint the Court need not make any determination with respect to immunity at this … The Court does note, however, that qualified immunity is not generally proper at the pleadings state of a case, as opposed to summary judgment by which time a detailed factual record would presumably have been established
Cited 3 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 timesPublishedDistrict Court, E.D. California · Mar 20, 2025
Qualified Immunity 14 Government officials enjoy qualified immunity from civil damages unless their 15 conduct violates “clearly established statutory or constitutional … Ordinarily, once the court 10 concludes that a right was clearly established, an officer is not entitled to qualified immunity 11 because a reasonably competent public official is charged with knowing the law governing
Cited 0 timesUnknownDistrict Court, E.D. California · Oct 6, 2025
Alleged Unreasonable Seizure (Theft of Plaintiff’s Money) 23 “Qualified immunity protects government officials from liability for civil damages unless 24 their conduct violates ‘clearly established statutory or … In cases where the defense of qualified 27 immunity is raised, the plaintiff must show that “(1) the official violated a statutory or 28 constitutional right, and (2) that the right was clearly established at the time
Cited 0 timesUnknown997 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 timesPublishedDistrict Court, E.D. California · Feb 28, 2020
The Court held defendants were entitled to 1 qualified immunity because such a right was not clearly established at least up to the decision in 2 Taylor. Id. at 2043–45. … Consequently, 14 Plaintiffs have not established a clearly established right, and therefore, Lizarraga is entitled to 15 qualified immunity.
Cited 0 timesUnknown(PC) Flow-Sunkett v. T. Redmon
District Court, E.D. California · Sep 30, 2024
immunity because during the applicable 8 time, there was no clearly established right to be afforded due process protections when affixing 9 an escape risk determinant to an inmate’s central file. … The plaintiff bears the burden of establishing that the right alleged 11 was clearly established. Moran v.
Cited 0 timesUnknown82 F. Supp. 2d 1134 · District Court, E.D. California · Dec 21, 1999
It is the established rule that waivers of sovereign immunity are construed narrowly and in favor of the sovereign. … United States, 839 F.Supp. 440, 446 (E.D.Tex.1993) for the proposition that some of the acts alleged may be “outside the scope of ‘assessment or collection’ ” and therefore “not protected from the qualified immunity” found
Cited 9 timesPublished811 F. Supp. 1411 · District Court, E.D. California · May 26, 1992
United States, 4 establishes that the plaintiff bears the initial burden of pleading matters that do not clearly fall within the exceptions of § 2680. Id. at 701. … would be immune.
Cited 13 timesPublishedDistrict Court, E.D. California · Jan 13, 2026
Clearly Established Law - Qualified Immunity 3 While Defendants will assert qualified immunity, that defense fails here because the law 4 was clearly established that the conduct engaged in by Defendant … Qualified Immunity 25 "'[T]he doctrine of qualified immunity protects government officials from liability for civil 26 damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established
Cited 0 timesUnknownDistrict Court, E.D. California · Dec 19, 2019
amended complaint and because Defendants’ conduct did violate 16 clearly established constitutional rights that Defendants knew about. … “But on the other hand, defendants are entitled to qualified immunity so long as ‘their 24 conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a 25 reasonable person would have known
Cited 0 timesUnknownDistrict Court, E.D. California · Dec 18, 2024
Qualified Immunity 8 Government officials enjoy qualified immunity from civil damages unless their conduct 9 violates “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights … However, even if the Court concluded that Defendant did violate a clearly 13 established right, Defendant would be entitled to qualified immunity because the evidence shows 14 that Defendant Dr.
Cited 0 timesUnknownDistrict Court, E.D. California · Aug 9, 2022
This is particularly so in this instance because 7 as explained below it is clear that Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity. 8 The doctrine of qualified immunity protects government officials from civil … Pearson, 555 U.S. at 236. 21 “For the second step in the qualified immunity analysis—whether the constitutional right was 22 clearly established at the time of the conduct—the
Cited 0 timesUnknownDistrict Court, E.D. California · Aug 20, 2020
Qualified Immunity 10 Government officials enjoy qualified immunity from civil damages unless their 11 conduct violates “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights … Ordinarily, once the court 3 concludes that a right was clearly established, an officer is not entitled to qualified immunity 4 because a reasonably competent public official is charged with knowing the law governing
Cited 0 timesUnknownDistrict Court, E.D. California · Sep 29, 2022
Officers are entitled to qualified immunity under § 1983 unless (1) the 26 officers violate a federal statutory or constitutional right, and (2) the unlawfulness of their conduct 27 was “clearly established at the time … City of Roseville, 882 9 F.3d 843, 856-57 (9th Cir. 2018) (noting that Ninth Circuit precedent is sufficient to meet the 10 “clearly established” prong of qualified immunity). 11 In the probable
Cited 0 timesUnknownDistrict Court, E.D. California · Sep 17, 2019
on qualified 7 immunity grounds. … Neither do we.”).3 Instead, the 5 Ninth Circuit, like the courts below, proceeded “straight to the second prong of the qualified 6 immunity analysis: whether a right to not face a heightened risk was ‘clearly established
Cited 0 timesUnknownDistrict Court, E.D. California · Jan 21, 2025
Legal Standards 21 “The doctrine of qualified immunity protects government officials ‘from liability for civil 22 damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established … Discussion 13 Defendant also moves for qualified immunity on the grounds that the TAC fails to 14 establish an Eighth Amendment violation and argues that there was no clearly
Cited 0 timesUnknown(PS) Yee v. Sacramento County Jail
District Court, E.D. California · Mar 6, 2023
Under the doctrine 12 of qualified immunity, which they assert, they are immune unless their conduct violated “clearly 13 established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” … Id. at 602. 26 Here, it is better to begin with the second part of the qualified immunity test: did the officers’ 27 conduct violate clearly established law?
Cited 0 timesUnknownDistrict Court, E.D. California · Feb 26, 2025
The defendants must “establish beyond controversy 27 every essential element” of their qualified immunity defense. S. California Gas Co. v. … “A government official’s 22 entitlement to qualified immunity depends on (1) whether there has been a violation of a 23 constitutional right; and (2) whether that right was clearly established at the time of the officer
Cited 0 timesUnknownStampfli v. Susanville Sanitary District
District Court, E.D. California · Feb 24, 2023
defendant Stump is entitled to qualified immunity. … established ° right, defendant is not entitled to qualified immunity.
Cited 0 timesUnknown
Ask Donna