Case law

Jadwin v. County of Kern

610 F. Supp. 2d 1129 · District Court, E.D. California · Apr 8, 2009

Harris has moved for summary judgment on the grounds of qualified immunity. … “The doctrine of qualified immunity protects government officials from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person

(PC) Brookins v. Hernandez

District Court, E.D. California · Jul 31, 2020

“The second prong of the qualified-immunity analysis asks 18 whether the right in question was ‘clearly established’ at the time of the violation.” Id. at 656 (citation 19 omitted). … Callahan, 555 U.S. 223, 236 (2009). 22 Under the second prong of the qualified immunity analysis, the question is whether the right in 23 question was clearly established at the time of the violation.

Club One Casino, Inc. v. U.S. Dep't of the Interior

328 F. Supp. 3d 1033 · District Court, E.D. California · Jul 13, 2018

The doctrine may be employed only "when a mistake of the administrative body is one that clearly had no bearing on the procedure used or the substance of decision reached." Buschmann v. … The Hotel Employees court explained that the waiver of immunity was designed to give effect to IGRA's remedial framework, 25 U.S.C. § 2710 (d)(7).

CHP

District Court, E.D. California · Mar 20, 2026

sued in his individual capacity, he enjoys qualified immunity for 4 civil damages if “their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional 5 rights of which a reasonable person would have known … right was “clearly established” as of the infringement.

(PC) Ireland v. White

District Court, E.D. California · May 28, 2020

Qualified Immunity 14 Defendants argue that, with respect to the alleged Fourteenth Amendment violations, 15 defendant White is shielded by qualified immunity. … would not have known that his conduct violated a clearly established right. 20 Anderson v.

D.K. Ex Rel. G.M. v. Solano County Office of Education

667 F. Supp. 2d 1184 · District Court, E.D. California · Oct 5, 2009

As to the second prerequisite for establishing disability discrimination, in order to be “qualified,” a person must “with or without reasonable modifications to rules, policies or practices ... meet[ ] the essential eligibility … However, as to Parent Plaintiff GM, DK’s Government Claim clearly lists that such claim was being brought by GM “on behalf of herself.” (RJN Ex. A 1.)

Comer v. County of Sutter

District Court, E.D. California · Dec 6, 2024

First, an exoneration of the deputies by way of qualified 16 immunity would not automatically preclude the County’s liability under Plaintiff’s Monell 17 theories. See Fairley, 281 F.3d at 917. … In that circumstance, Plaintiff may still succeed on 18 showing a constitutional deprivation for which the individual deputy Defendants are shielded by 19 qualified immunity — but not the municipality under Monell.

(PC) Samaniego v. CDCR

District Court, E.D. California · Feb 17, 2021

Officers are entitled to qualified immunity under § 1983 21 unless (1) the officers violate a federal statutory or constitutional right, and (2) the unlawfulness 22 of their conduct was “clearly established at the time … City of Roseville, 882 F.3d 843, 856-57 3 (9th Cir. 2018) (noting that Ninth Circuit precedent is sufficient to meet the “clearly established” 4 prong of qualified immunity); Hamby v.

County of Madera v. Picayune Rancheria of the Chukchansi Indians

467 F. Supp. 2d 993 · District Court, E.D. California · Dec 18, 2006

However, the Court lacks jurisdiction because the face of the complaint shows that no federal causes of action are pled and the Supreme Court, in a case that postdates Oneida, Santa Rosa, and Cabazon, has clearly held that … tribal immunity is a defense and is no basis for finding a federal question.

McDaniel v. Diaz

District Court, E.D. California · Jan 15, 2021

to qualified immunity. … (Mot. 5-7.) 6 The doctrine of qualified immunity protects government officials from civil liability 7 where “their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of 8 which

(PC) Saldana v. Spearman

District Court, E.D. California · Oct 13, 2021

Qualified Immunity 7 “Government officials enjoy qualified immunity from civil damages unless their conduct 8 violates ‘clearly established statutory or constitutional rights … Pearson, 555 U.S. at 236-42. 23 “[S]ummary judgment based on qualified immunity is improper if, under the plaintiff’s 24 version of the facts, and in light of the clearly established

Albanese v. City of Oroville

District Court, E.D. California · Oct 12, 2022

of the legal rules that were clearly established at the time it was taken.” 3 Anderson v. … Qualified immunity is a question of law, not a question of fact.

(PC) Gregory E. Shehee (Civil Detainee) v. Redding

District Court, E.D. California · Jun 30, 2020

“The second prong of the qualified-immunity analysis 18 asks whether the right in question was ‘clearly established’ at the time of the violation.” Id. at 656 19 (citation omitted). … Callahan, 555 U.S. 223, 22 236 (2009). 23 In analyzing the second prong of qualified immunity, the Court notes that clearly established 24 law must be defined

(PC) Sharpe v. Sherman

District Court, E.D. California · Nov 8, 2021

In addition, the findings and recommendations found the defendants are not entitled to 12 summary judgment on qualified immunity grounds in this case because it was clearly established 13 law that “delays in medical treatment … immunity based on their alleged violations of a clearly 13 established right.

(PS) Weinapple v. Bonta

District Court, E.D. California · Dec 16, 2024

Duarte, 108 F.4th 786 (9th Cir. 2024). 3 Here, critically, even if the en banc court were to endorse the prior panel’s view, 4 defendants would be entitled to qualified immunity because, at the time they confiscated … City of Fresno, 936 F.3d 937, 940 (9th Cir. 2019) (For purposes of qualified 7 immunity, “[a] defendant violates an individual’s clearly established rights only when ‘the state 8 of the law’ at the time of an incident

(PC) Townsend v. Hemela

District Court, E.D. California · Aug 24, 2021

Qualified Immunity 18 The doctrine of qualified immunity protects government officials from civil liability 19 where “their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory … at hand.” 2 Pearson, 555 U.S. at 236. 3 “For the second step in the qualified immunity analysis—whether the constitutional right 4 was clearly established at the time

(PC) Smithee v. California Correctional Institution

District Court, E.D. California · Aug 18, 2023

Qualified Immunity 19 Defendant claims he is entitled to qualified immunity in the face of Plaintiffs’ alleged Eighth 20 Amendment violation. … A 8 plaintiff must prove both steps of the inquiry to establish the official is not entitled to qualified 9 immunity. Felarca v. Birgeneau, 891 F.3d 809, 815 (9th Cir. 2018) (citing Saucier v.

Nunes v. Stephens

District Court, E.D. California · Aug 22, 2019

“Qualified immunity” is an 3 immunity in § 1983 cases, it does not apply to state law claims. See Johnson v. … Qualified Immunity 5 Qualified immunity applies when an official’s conduct does not violate a clearly 6 established federal statutory or constitutional rights, of which

Luckey

District Court, E.D. California · Sep 30, 2025

Qualified immunity protects 15 “government officials performing discretionary functions generally” “from liability for civil 16 damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … The Court held that Plaintiff’s alleged right to this kind of intimate association was 4 not clearly established at the time of the challenged conduct and accordingly Sokoloff is entitled 5 to qualified immunity.

DeLong v. Carrillo

District Court, E.D. California · Sep 13, 2021

right; and 22 (2) whether the right was clearly established. … were clearly 6 established at the time it was taken.”