Case law
Opinions from 1658 to today.
6,306 results
1.61s
(PC) Ben-Binyamin v. Benavidez
District Court, E.D. California · Feb 13, 2020
Third and finally, defendants argue that they are entitled 8 to qualified immunity because the right to wear a Tallit “in a manner and at all times of [a] 9 prisoner’s choosing” was not clearly established at the time … A defendant is entitled to 14 qualified immunity “unless a plaintiff pleads facts showing (1) that the official violated a 15 statutory or constitutional right, and (2) that the right was “clearly established” at the
Cited 0 timesUnknownDistrict Court, E.D. California · Nov 14, 2024
entitled to qualified 19 immunity because it was not clearly established that his use of intermediate force under these 20 particular circumstances was unlawful at the time of the incident. … (ECF No. 40 at 13.) 21 Qualified immunity shields officials from civil liability where a reasonable officer would 22 not have known that his conduct violated a clearly established right. Anderson v.
Cited 0 timesUnknownDistrict Court, E.D. California · Apr 22, 2024
Qualified Immunity 24 “Government officials enjoy qualified immunity from civil damages unless their conduct 25 violates ‘clearly established statutory or constitutional … When defendants raise the 12 issue of qualified immunity, it is the plaintiff who bears the burden of showing that the rights 13 allegedly violated were clearly established. LSO, Ltd. v.
Cited 0 timesUnknownAntonio Guyton v. City of Stockton, et al.
District Court, E.D. California · Dec 29, 2025
entitled to qualified immunity. 27 Government officials are immune “from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does 28 not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable … Id. 11 Second, if the answer to the first inquiry is “yes,” the court must ask whether the constitutional 12 right was “clearly established.” Id.
Cited 0 timesUnknownDistrict Court, E.D. California · Dec 14, 2021
Qualified Immunity 2 Government officials enjoy qualified immunity from civil damages unless their 3 conduct violates “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights … Ordinarily, once the court 23 concludes that a right was clearly established, an officer is not entitled to qualified immunity 24 because a reasonably competent public official is charged with knowing the law governing
Cited 0 timesUnknown314 F. Supp. 3d 1077 · District Court, E.D. California · Jul 4, 2018
Plaintiff must establish that the law and facts clearly favor its position, not simply that it is likely to succeed on its claims. See Garcia v. Google, Inc. , 786 F.3d 733 , 740 (9th Cir. 2015). *1087 B. … Intergovernmental Immunity The Supremacy Clause gives rise to another doctrine restricting States' power: the doctrine of intergovernmental immunity.
Cited 16 timesPublishedS.H. ex rel. Holt v. United States
32 F. Supp. 3d 1111 · District Court, E.D. California · Jul 8, 2014
Shales was qualified to make such a diagnosis. … It is clearly not a clear prediction of her later diagnosis of cerebral palsy. TR 316-17.
Cited 0 timesPublishedDistrict Court, E.D. California · Feb 28, 2023
(Id.). 5 Finally, Defendants argue that they are entitled to qualified immunity because “it is not 6 clearly established that failing to provide a right cochlear implant to an … Legal Standards for Qualified Immunity 24 “The doctrine of qualified immunity protects government officials ‘from liability for 25 civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly
Cited 0 timesUnknown(PC) Smylie v. Plumas County District Attorney Office
District Court, E.D. California · Aug 27, 2025
“Prosecutors 23 are entitled to qualified immunity, rather than absolute immunity, when they perform 24 administrative functions, or ‘investigative functions normally performed by a detective or police 25 officer.’” … When determining whether a prosecutor is entitled to absolute or qualified immunity for 27 their actions, a court should focus on “the nature of the function performed.”
Cited 0 timesUnknown511 F. Supp. 1244 · District Court, E.D. California · Apr 3, 1981
As such, defendants Mills and McCarthy are absolutely immune from suit pursuant to common law legislative immunity. Supreme Court of Virginia v. … Seldin, supra, 95 S.Ct. at 2205 , (emphasis in original). [15] In order to establish the requisite "stake" in the outcome of a controversy, a plaintiff must establish 1) that he has personally suffered some actual or threatened
Cited 18 timesPublishedDistrict Court, E.D. California · Feb 1, 2021
Vild, 891 F.2d 240, 242 (9th Cir. 1989). 26 “Government officials enjoy qualified immunity from civil damages unless their conduct 27 violates ‘clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a … That right was clearly 3 | established at the time of this incident, defeating defendants’ assertion of qualified immunity. 4 In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff's sur-reply 5 |
Cited 0 timesUnknownKennedy v. United States Department of the Interior
282 F.R.D. 588 · District Court, E.D. California · May 9, 2012
The Federal Government may not ignore or reject the results of a tribal election that clearly states the will of a sovereign Indian nation. … The Ninth Circuit has explained the public rights exception as follows: The contours of the public rights exception have not been clearly defined.
Cited 0 timesPublishedDistrict Court, E.D. California · Oct 31, 2025
immunity. … established.
Cited 0 timesUnknownDistrict Court, E.D. California · Oct 10, 2019
Legal Standards 15 Government officials enjoy qualified immunity from civil damages unless their conduct 16 violates clearly established statutory or constitutional rights … defendant’s conduct violated a statutory or constitutional right; and (2) whether the right at issue 21 was “clearly established.”
Cited 0 timesUnknownDistrict Court, E.D. California · Jan 10, 2025
Id. 20 Defendant also asserts he is entitled to summary judgment based on the qualified 21 immunity doctrine. … “Government officials enjoy qualified immunity from civil damages unless 22 their conduct violates ‘clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable 23 person would have known.’”
Cited 0 timesUnknownA.T. v. Dry Creek Joint Elementary School District
District Court, E.D. California · Mar 16, 2021
of qualified immunity . . . .” … immunity because they did not violate 13 clearly established law at the time of the alleged violations.”
Cited 0 timesUnknownA.V. v. Panama-Buena Vista Union Sch. Dist.
292 F. Supp. 3d 992 · District Court, E.D. California · Nov 9, 2017
The District argues, however, that because it qualifies as a "state agency" for purposes of immunity under the Eleventh Amendment, it cannot be sued under the Unruh Act in federal court. … According to the District, that makes any discrimination claim unavailing, since "it is logically fallacious for Plaintiff to plead that he was denied a benefit due to his disability that he could not have qualified for without
Cited 3 timesPublishedDistrict Court, E.D. California · Sep 15, 2025
immunity. … Finally, 10 plaintiff argues that defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity because it was clearly 11 established in McDonald v. Macabuhay, No. CV 07-1022-PHX-GMS (MHB), 2009 U.S. Dist. 12 LEXIS 73851, (D.
Cited 0 timesUnknownDistrict Court, E.D. California · Sep 2, 2022
Alternatively, Defendants contend that they are entitled to qualified immunity in 5 any event because Plaintiffs cannot point to any “clearly established” constitutional right 6 that was violated under the circumstances … It is true that qualified immunity shields 20 government officials “from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not 21 violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable
Cited 0 timesUnknownDistrict Court, E.D. California · May 29, 2025
immunity protects government officials from civil liability where “their conduct 3 does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person 4 would have known.” … A 5 defendant is entitled to qualified immunity “unless a plaintiff pleads facts showing (1) that the 6 official violated a statutory or constitutional right, and (2) that the right was “clearly established” 7 at the
Cited 0 timesUnknown
Ask Donna