Case law

(PS)Grill

District Court, E.D. California · Jun 29, 2026

immunity. … Accordingly, the Court will disregard the third “cause of action” alleging lack of 5 qualified immunity in its review of the FAC. 6 A.

Theis v. Yuba County Sheriff's Department

District Court, E.D. California · Sep 11, 2020

Callahan, 555 U.S. 223, 236 (2009). 20 Given the record here, the court first addresses whether the rights allegedly 21 violated were clearly established.1 Qualified immunity is intended to “give[] government … If the law was clear enough that every 2 reasonable official in Barnhill and Smith’s shoes would have understood their specific conduct 3 was unlawful, the right violated is clearly established and qualified immunity

(PC) Wesson v. Linde

District Court, E.D. California · Jan 26, 2023

/d. 4 Defendant argues he is entitled to qualified immunity because there is no clearly 5 || established law that “acting immediately in response to Plaintiff's complaint and not 6 || demonstrably injuring Plaintiff … Defendant’s motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 32) is denied because he is not 25 || entitled to qualified immunity. 26 3.

Riggs

District Court, E.D. California · Nov 14, 2025

Qualified Immunity 23 Qualified immunity protects government officials from liability under § 1983 “unless 24 (1) they violated a federal statutory or constitutional right, and (2) … In qualified immunity cases, the plaintiff bears the burden of demonstrating that 24 the law was clearly established. Hart v. City of Redwood City, 99 F.4th 543, 555 (9th Cir. 2024) 25 (citing Isayeva v.

Thurston v. City of Vallejo

District Court, E.D. California · Aug 4, 2022

“A government official’s entitlement to 11 qualified immunity depends on (1) whether there has been a violation of a constitutional right; 12 and (2) whether that right was clearly established at the time of the officer … Black, 885 F.2d 642, 645 (9th Cir. 1989)). 23 In sum, a reasonable jury could conclude that Barreto used excessive force, and if it did, 24 he would not be entitled to qualified immunity because the clearly established

(PS) Lucero v. Oak Run Elementary School District

District Court, E.D. California · May 5, 2025

The sur-reply continues the false argument that Oak Run did not 10 raise Eleventh Amendment immunity in its motion. It clearly did. … Immunity and Leave to Amend: Livingston also seeks dismissal on qualified 10 immunity grounds.

(PC) Rice v. McCord

District Court, E.D. California · Mar 2, 2020

However, even if the plaintiff 12 has alleged a violation of a clearly established right, the government official is entitled to 13 qualified immunity if he could have “. . . reasonably but mistakenly believed that … Therefore, any right 19 Goodrich is alleged to have violated was not clearly established at the time of the incident and 20 Goodrich is entitled to qualified immunity. 21 3.

(PC) Venegas v. Mendoza

District Court, E.D. California · Feb 26, 2024

And as to the argument that Defendants Bracken and Munoz are entitled to qualified 6 immunity, Plaintiff argues that there is clearly established … immunity 1 because there is no clearly established law on point.

(PC) Murillo v. Holland

District Court, E.D. California · Jul 28, 2023

Rico II, 2022 WL 17424331, at *1. 1 Government officials are entitled to qualified immunity from civil damages unless their 2 conduct violates “clearly established” statutory or constitutional rights. … Defendants argue they are entitled to qualified immunity because 4 it was not clearly established in 2014 that the noise caused by the use of Guard One violated a 5 prisoner’s Eighth Amendment rights.

(PC) Hammler v. Lyons

District Court, E.D. California · Jul 6, 2021

Qualified immunity protects § 1983 defendants from 28 liability for civil damages so long as their conduct does not violate clearly established 1 constitutional or statutory rights of which a reasonable person … clearly established.

(PS) Ferreira da Silva v. Ross

District Court, E.D. California · Nov 17, 2022

Qualified Immunity 7 Qualified immunity shields government officials from monetary damages unless their 8 conduct violated “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights … “In evaluating a 10 grant of qualified immunity, a court considers whether (1) the state actor’s conduct violated a 11 constitutional right and (2) the right was clearly established at the time of the alleged 12 misconduct

Westlands Water District Distribution District v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc.

276 F. Supp. 2d 1046 · District Court, E.D. California · Jul 9, 2003

P. 12(B)(1) It is well established that the party seeking to invoke the jurisdiction of the federal court has the burden of establishing that jurisdiction exists. KVOS, Inc. v. … See Manistee, 227 F.3d at 1095 (“The immunity is no longer limited to the antitrust context; we have held that Noerr-Pennington immunity applies to claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 that are based on the petitioning of public

(PC) Avery v. Richey

District Court, E.D. California · Feb 2, 2022

Qualified immunity protects government officials from liability for 7 civil damages where a reasonable person would not have known their conduct violated a clearly 8 established right. Anderson v. … that defendants’ conduct violated his clearly established right to conduct the 4 ceremonies).4 5 Plaintiff also had a well-established equal protection right

(PC) Green v. Lacebal

District Court, E.D. California · Apr 23, 2025

Qualified Immunity 19 Defendants also claim entitlement to qualified immunity. … Indeed, in the prison context, the 5 || “prohibition against retaliatory punishment is ‘clearly established law’ in the Ninth Circuit for 6 || qualified immunity purposes.” Chavez v.

Langdon

District Court, E.D. California · Nov 25, 2025

Courts may 23 consider qualified immunity at the pleadings stage. … record.”). 1 The County defendants argue that Torres is entitled to qualified immunity because 2 plaintiffs have failed to show that her actions violated a clearly established right.

(PC) Derek Matthews v. Edmund G. Brown

District Court, E.D. California · Jun 9, 2021

City of Roseville, 882 F.3d 843, 856-57 (9th Cir. 2018) (holding that Ninth Circuit 7 precedent is sufficient to meet the “clearly established” prong of qualified immunity). … Mar. 25, 2020) 8 (denying qualified immunity as to a Fourth Amendment cross-gender strip search claim based on 9 the clearly established law of Byrd).

(PS) Lull v. County of Sacramento

District Court, E.D. California · Sep 10, 2019

Qualified Immunity 5 The individual defendants argue that they are entitled to qualified immunity. ECF No. 17- 6 1 at 6-7. … Qualified immunity protects government officials from liability for civil damages where 7 a reasonable official would not have known that his conduct violated a clearly established right. 8 5, 483 U.S. 635, 638-39 (1987

Carrizales v. City of Vallejo

District Court, E.D. California · Sep 5, 2025

Defendant Officers are Not Entitled to Qualified Immunity on Remaining Federal 2 Claims 3 “Qualified immunity shields government officials under § 1983 … The defendant Officer Giri is not entitled to qualified immunity on the Fourth 5 Amendment failure to provide medical care claim. 6 It is also clearly established, as defendants acknowledge,

Hart

District Court, E.D. California · Sep 18, 2025

25 immunity unless (1) the official “violated a federal statutory or constitutional right, and (2) the 26 unlawfulness of his conduct was ‘clearly established at the time.’” … The 6 plaintiff bears the burden of establishing the right alleged was clearly established. Moran v. 7 Washington, 47 F.3d 839, 844 (9th Cir. 1998).

Vasquez v. Richland School District

District Court, E.D. California · Aug 6, 2019

Martinez correctly states that the two 25 prongs of a qualified immunity analysis are: (1) whether the facts taken in the light most favorable to the 2 constitutional right was clearly established at the time of the … Clearly Established 8 To determine whether a defendant violated an individual’s clearly established rights, a court 9 must determine “whether the state of the law at the time