Case law
Opinions from 1658 to today.
6,306 results
0.57s
237 F. Supp. 3d 997 · District Court, E.D. California · Feb 27, 2017
“It is within this framework that [Plaintiffs] ... ’ must establish standing.” Id. at 1034 . 2. … Id. at 17 ¶ 3. 20 Defendant takes no position on whether Hoskins qualifies as “a provider of an interactive computer service” or whether he is entitled to immunity under § 230(c). See Doc. 20 at 28.
Cited 5 timesPublishedDistrict Court, E.D. California · Sep 23, 2021
Mot. at 5. 8 Qualified immunity protects government officials from 9 liability for money damages unless their conduct violates 10 “clearly established … Because Plaintiff has not identified a 26 clearly established right, Defendants are entitled to qualified 27 immunity and the Court need not address the first prong of the 28 Saucier test.
Cited 0 timesUnknownDistrict Court, E.D. California · Jul 8, 2022
The findings and recommendations went on to 16 note that it is clearly established law that inmates have the right to marry. (Id.) (quoting Turney v. 17 Safley, 482 U.S. 78, 95 (1987)). … Accordingly, the assigned magistrate judge concluded that 18 defendants are not entitled to dismissal on qualified immunity grounds on the basis of the 19 allegations contained in plaintiff’s complaint.
Cited 0 timesUnknown(PS) Hanible v. County of Solano Sheriff's Office
District Court, E.D. California · Jun 23, 2025
ECF No. 89 at 35. 6 Government officials enjoy qualified immunity from civil damages unless their conduct 7 violates clearly established statutory or constitutional rights. Jeffers v. … it was clearly established.
Cited 0 timesUnknownHernandez v. Ignite Restaurant Group, Inc.
917 F. Supp. 2d 1086 · District Court, E.D. California · Jan 9, 2013
In this situation, the court may ignore the presence of a sham defendant for the purpose of establishing diversity. Id. … The removing party bears the burden of establishing federal jurisdiction. Ethridge v. Harbor House Restaurant, 861 F.2d 1389, 1393 (9th Cir.1988).
Cited 14 timesPublishedNewdow v. Congress of the United States
435 F. Supp. 2d 1066 · District Court, E.D. California · Jun 12, 2006
Plaintiff argues that defendants are not immune from plaintiffs claims because “performing a clearly unconstitutional act cannot, in any way, be considered part of the legislative process.” (Opp’n at 42). … Because the Legislative Branch defendants are dismissed based upon Speech and Debate Clause immunity, the court need not reach the issue of sovereign immunity. 11 .
Cited 2 timesPublishedDistrict Court, E.D. California · Apr 25, 2022
Id. at 1123. 14 In arguing that they are entitled to summary judgment in their favor on qualified immunity 15 grounds, defendants contend that the Ninth Circuit’s decision in Mink did not clearly establish 16 that … as to overcome qualified immunity.
Cited 0 timesUnknownNational Ass'n for the Advancement of Colored People v. California
511 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 5 timesPublishedDistrict Court, E.D. California · Aug 26, 2025
guaranteed to him by the Constitution or laws of the United States or any 11 other clearly established right.” … immunity in that there can be no liability on the facts alleged and Defendants 10 did not violate any clearly established statutory or constitutional right of which a reasonable 11 person in Defendants’ position would
Cited 0 timesUnknownDistrict Court, E.D. California · Feb 20, 2025
Qualified Immunity 2 Defendant alternatively argues that he is entitled to qualified immunity. ECF No. 53-1 at 3 16-18. … “[S]ummary 12 judgment based on qualified immunity is improper if, under the plaintiff’s version of the facts, 13 and in light of the clearly established law, a reasonable officer could not have believed his 14
Cited 0 timesUnknownDistrict Court, E.D. California · Oct 27, 2021
“Government officials enjoy 24 qualified immunity from civil damages unless their conduct violates ‘clearly established statutory 25 or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.’” … a statutory or constitutional right; and (2) whether the right at issue was clearly 2 established at the time of the incident.
Cited 0 timesUnknownDistrict Court, E.D. California · Jan 13, 2020
Qualified Immunity 3 Finally, defendants argue plaintiff’s remaining claims are barred by the “qualified 4 immunity” doctrine. … “Government officials enjoy qualified immunity from civil damages unless 5 their conduct violates ‘clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable 6 person would have known.’”
Cited 0 timesUnknownUnited States v. Sierra Pacific Industries
879 F. Supp. 2d 1128 · District Court, E.D. California · Jun 4, 2012
The burden then shifts to the nonmoving party, which “must establish that there is a genuine issue of material fact .... ” Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. … As they are not compulsory counter-claims, there has been no waiver of sovereign immunity. 2.
Cited 1 timesPublishedCity of Fresno v. United States
709 F. Supp. 2d 888 · District Court, E.D. California · Jun 30, 2010
The Ninth Circuit has held that a lawsuit qualifies as a “challenge” under § 113(h), and is thus barred, if it is “directly related to the goals of the cleanup itself.” Id. … The City further relies on the fact that two California agencies established nonbinding environmental standards concerning TCP.
Cited 14 timesPublishedDistrict Court, E.D. California · Jul 29, 2025
Qualified immunity 22 protects government officials from liability under § 1983 “unless (1) they violated a federal 23 statutory or constitutional right, and (2) the unlawfulness of their conduct was ‘clearly established … City & Cty. of S.F., 83 8 F.3d 1143, 1146-48 (9th Cir. 1996) (qualified immunity denied because “the law governing 9 ‘shooting to kill’ a fleeing suspect is clearly established and because a reasonable officer could
Cited 0 timesUnknownDistrict Court, E.D. California · Apr 23, 2024
right, and (2) the unlawfulness of his 27 conduct was ‘clearly established at the time.’” … The plaintiff bears the burden 13 of establishing that the right alleged was clearly established. Moran v.
Cited 0 timesUnknownDistrict Court, E.D. California · Sep 29, 2025
used here was excessive, then the 10 officer is immune to civil suit under the doctrine of qualified immunity. … analysis on the second 14 qualified immunity prong.
Cited 0 timesUnknownVaughn v. Regents of University of California
504 F. Supp. 1349 · District Court, E.D. California · Jan 16, 1981
However, the Regents]’] power to issue bonds is limited to “establishing any project or acquiring lands for any project . . . ” [Cal. Education Code] § 92435. … Clearly, any damage claim resulting from a lawsuit such as the instant one would not be paid through such revenue bonds but from public funds. Selman v. Harvard Medical School, 494 F.Supp. 603, 615 (S.D.N.Y. 1980).
Cited 24 timesPublishedDistrict Court, E.D. California · Apr 19, 2022
18 Defendants argue that the individual capacity claims should be dismissed pursuant to 19 the doctrine of qualified immunity based on the second prong, whether the right was clearly 20 established. … Cal. 2015) (“The law is clearly established that inmates 17 have a right to marry.
Cited 0 timesUnknownDistrict Court, E.D. California · Dec 3, 2025
, that qualified immunity 22 applies.” … There are two prongs in the 26 qualified-immunity inquiry: “(1) whether ‘the facts alleged show the official’s conduct violated a 27 constitutional right; and (2) if so, whether the right was clearly established’ as of
Cited 0 timesUnknown
Ask Donna