Case law
Opinions from 1658 to today.
6,306 results
0.38s
(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 · 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 timesUnknownCrystal Graham v. Officer Greg Rodriguez, Acting Warden Michael Pallares, and Does 1 to 30
District Court, E.D. California · Oct 27, 2025
No. 24-1 at 4-5). 13 Additionally, Pallares argues he is entitled to qualified immunity on this claim because “it was 14 not clearly established that a warden’s unspecified ‘ratification’ of an officer’s sexual assault … As with the previous claim, Defendant argues he 24 is entitled to qualified immunity because “it is not clearly established that convicted inmates can 25 state a ‘bodily integrity’ claim under the Fourteenth Amendment
Cited 0 timesUnknownDistrict Court, E.D. California · Dec 5, 2025
No. 21-1 at 4-5). 10 Additionally, Pallares argues he is entitled to qualified immunity on this claim because it was 11 “not clearly established that the alleged conduct by Warden Pallares here could violate the Eighth … Defendant also argues he is entitled to 19 qualified immunity as to this claim because “it is not clearly established that convicted inmates 20 can state a ‘bodily integrity’ claim under the Fourteenth Amendment.”
Cited 0 timesUnknownEstate of Vincent Frank Boscaino, Jr. v. Adventist Health Hanford
District Court, E.D. California · Jan 29, 2025
Qualified immunity 17 Alternatively, the KWPH Defendants argue that, if they were acting under color of law, 18 they would be entitled to qualified immunity under the Perez decision—their … “When, as here, 27 defendants assert qualified immunity in a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), dismissal is 28 not appropriate unless [a court] can determine, based on the complaint itself, that qualified 1 immunity
Cited 0 timesUnknownGary Crain v. State of California, et al.
District Court, E.D. California · Dec 31, 2025
As the magistrate judge observed, “a court may deny a qualified immunity 16 defense without prejudice and, after further factual development, a defendant may re-raise the 17 qualified immunity issue at summary judgment … Robinson, 408 F.3d 559, 567 (9th Cir. 2005)) (for First Amendment 5 purposes and in the prison context, “the prohibition against retaliatory punishment is clearly 6 established law in the Ninth Circuit, for qualified
Cited 0 timesUnknownDistrict Court, E.D. California · Jan 16, 2020
“[O]fficers are entitled to 19 qualified immunity under § 1983 unless (1) they violated a federal statutory or constitutional right, and 20 (2) the unlawfulness of their conduct was ‘clearly established at the time. … Consistent with the policy to resolve “[qualified] immunity questions 5 at the earliest possible stage in litigation,” Pearson, 555 U.S. at 232, the Court finds that Officer 6 McKinnon is entitled to qualified immunity
Cited 0 timesUnknownDistrict Court, E.D. California · Jul 21, 2025
With 25 regard to qualified immunity, defendants assert that “it was not clearly established that on 26 October 30, 2021, a brief, clothed body search of an inmate based on an officer’s reasonable 27 … A prisoner’s right to be free from punitive actions for filing grievances or pursuing civil 28 rights litigation against prison officials was “clearly established law” in the Ninth Circuit for 1 qualified immunity purposes
Cited 0 timesUnknownDistrict Court, E.D. California · Jan 9, 2020
(Id.). 5 Moreover, even if the oral statements were protected, Defendant is entitled to qualified 6 immunity because “[i]t was not clearly established at the time (in early 2017) that such oral … Qualified Immunity 7 “The doctrine of qualified immunity protects government officials ‘from liability for 8 civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established
Cited 0 timesUnknownDelano Farms Co. v. California Table Grape Commission
623 F. Supp. 2d 1144 · District Court, E.D. California · Feb 20, 2009
Here, unless it is clearly shown that the United States has waived its sovereign immunity, it cannot be joined. “Absent a waiver, sovereign immunity shields the Federal government and its agencies from suit.” … “It long has been established, of course, that the United States, as sovereign, ‘is immune from suit save as it consents to be sued ... and the terms of its consent to be sued in any court define that court’s jurisdiction
Cited 9 timesPublishedStampfli 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 timesUnknownRosemary H. Mullins v. County of Fresno
District Court, E.D. California · Jul 28, 2025
However, plaintiffs’ opposition argues that both Curtice and Riordan should be denied qualified immunity based on clearly established law. … Clearly Established Law 2 Even if a constitutional violation occurred, qualified immunity nevertheless applies unless 3 the violation was clearly established.
Cited 0 timesUnknown874 F. Supp. 270 · District Court, E.D. California · Oct 18, 1994
Absent a showing by the plaintiff that the United States has explicitly waived sovereign immunity, the court lacks jurisdiction and the case must be dismissed. Land v. … In order for plaintiff to have an action against the individual federal defendants, she must make allegations that state the violation of a clearly established constitutional right. See generally, Mitchell v.
Cited 2 timesPublishedDistrict Court, E.D. California · May 14, 2024
Qualified Immunity 25 Defendant Murphy argues that he is entitled to 26 qualified immunity. … “‘The doctrine of qualified immunity 27 protects government officials from liability for civil damages 28 insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established 1 [federal] statutory
Cited 0 timesUnknown761 F. Supp. 2d 957 · District Court, E.D. California · Dec 30, 2010
As we have seen, the first claim clearly derives from common law principles and is for that reason subject to the one-year statute. … Plaintiff was in all respects qualified for her position and was performing well.
Cited 6 timesPublishedEverett H. ex rel. Havey v. Dry Creek Joint Elementary School District
5 F. Supp. 3d 1167 · District Court, E.D. California · Mar 20, 2014
By its terms, § 37252.2 mandates the provision of certain intensive supplemental instructional programs to qualifying students. … The Motion is GRANTED as to the Third Claim for Relief in its entirety since that claim is barred by Eleventh Amendment immunity.
Cited 13 timesPublishedDistrict Court, E.D. California · Jul 1, 2026
them to qualified immunity.” … immunity as they did not violate clearly established law.
Cited 0 timesUnknownDistrict Court, E.D. California · Feb 26, 2026
to qualified immunity. … Qualified immunity 26 protects government officials from civil liability where “their conduct does not violate clearly 27 established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.”
Cited 0 timesUnknownDistrict Court, E.D. California · Apr 20, 2023
a constitutional 1 right,” and second, whether the right is clearly established. … immunity inquiry, whether the 15 right was clearly established.
Cited 0 timesUnknownDistrict Court, E.D. California · Apr 15, 2020
Qualified Immunity 11 The doctrine of qualified immunity protects government officials from civil liability 12 where “their conduct does not violate clearly established … Whether the Law Was Clearly Established 15 Defendants argue that they are entitled to qualified immunity based on the finding that 16 there was no clearly established right to be free from
Cited 0 timesUnknown
Ask Donna