Case law

State of CA v. Del Rosa

District Court, E.D. California · Jan 24, 2024

Qualified Immunity 20 Defendants Phillip Del Rosa and Darren Rose argue they are entitled to qualified 21 immunity to the extent they are sued in their personal capacities … “The doctrine 25 of qualified immunity protects government officials ‘from liability for civil damages insofar as 26 their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a 27

Walter W. Wells v. County of Stanislaus

District Court, E.D. California · Sep 14, 2022

Qualified Immunity 27 City Defendants argue Evers is entitled to qualified immunity because he did not violate 28 clearly established law. (ECF No. 66 at 26.) … (ECF No. 79 at 23.) 3 In § 1983 actions, qualified immunity “protects government officials from civil liability 4 where ‘their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of

(PC) Carr v. California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation

District Court, E.D. California · Jun 2, 2021

“The second prong of the qualified-immunity analysis asks 25 whether the right in question was ‘clearly established’ at the time of the violation.” Id. at 656 (citation 26 omitted). … In applying the qualified immunity doctrine, courts may “exercise their sound discretion in 27 deciding which of the two prongs of the qualified immunity analysis should be addressed first in light 28 of the circumstances

(PC) Perez v. Lorman

District Court, E.D. California · Feb 10, 2020

Qualified Immunity 7 Defendant also asserts he is entitled to summary judgment under the “qualified immunity” 8 doctrine. … “Government officials enjoy qualified immunity from civil damages unless their 9 conduct violates ‘clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable 10 person would have known.’”

Novac v. County of Sacramento

District Court, E.D. California · Oct 21, 2019

“Qualified immunity shields a government 7 official from liability for civil damages if (1) the law 8 governing the official’s conduct was clearly established; and (2) 9 under that law, the official … Id. 11 Plaintiffs’ allegations do not defeat the Social Workers’ 12 qualified immunity defense.

Kelly v. United States Department of the Interior

339 F. Supp. 1095 · District Court, E.D. California · Feb 22, 1972

Its first redeeming feature is its plain purpose to establish a flexible program. … While it perhaps could have more clearly delineated the qualifying classes of Indians, it wisely chose to avoid the inequities latent in rigid classifications.

Cupp v. Bonta

District Court, E.D. California · Sep 28, 2021

(ECF No. 89 at 3–4.)5 6 Qualified immunity shields government officials performing discretionary functions from 7 liability for civil damages “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory … Qualified immunity requires a two-prong test: (1) whether the facts 10 alleged show the defendants’ conduct violated a constitutional right; and (2) whether the right 11 was clearly established at the time of the violation

(PC) Bennett v. Burton

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

Katz, 533 U.S. 194 (2001), the Supreme Court established a two-step 2 sequence for determining qualified immunity claims. … inquiries concerning qualified 5 immunity.

(PC) Muniz v. Pfeiffer

District Court, E.D. California · Sep 23, 2019

“The threshold inquiry in a qualified immunity analysis is whether the plaintiff’s allegations, if 16 true, establish a constitutional violation.” Wilkins v. … ’ was clearly established.” 21 With the exception of the rare obvious case, to constitute a clearly established right, the case law must 22 show that an officer acting under similar circumstances violated a person’s

(PC) Spence v. Stambaugh

District Court, E.D. California · Mar 11, 2021

immunity unless it was clearly established on the 3 date of Mr. … A right is not 8 clearly established for qualified immunity purposes “unless existing precedent ‘squarely governs’ 9 the specific facts at issue.” Kisela v. Hughes, 138 S.

Gomez v. City of Vacaville

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

court can rule on qualified immunity.” 8 Nehad, 929 F.3d at 1140 (quoting Morales v. … by an officer’s actions, the officer is entitled to qualified immunity. 20 Nicholson v.

Pottorff v. City of Fresno

District Court, E.D. California · Aug 3, 2020

Qualified Immunity 13 “The doctrine of qualified immunity shields officials from civil liability so long as their 14 conduct does not violate clearly established statutory … argues that “even the existence of material issues of fact will not 11 preclude the application of qualified immunity if the law was not ‘clearly established’ at the 12 time.”

(PC)Sandoval v. Lopez

District Court, E.D. California · Dec 17, 2024

immunity, Defendants state Plaintiff essentially conceded the 5 constitutional right is not clearly established by relying on broad Eighth Amendment principles 6 and Defendants’ “general duty to protect inmates, which … Qualified Immunity 20 “Government officials enjoy qualified immunity from civil damages unless their conduct 21 violates ‘clearly established statutory or constitutional rights

Alejandre v. County of San Joaquin

District Court, E.D. California · Apr 20, 2021

Qualified Immunity 7 The doctrine of qualified immunity “protects government 8 officials ‘from liability for civil damages insofar as their 9 conduct does … ’ conduct 16 violated “clearly established” federal law.

Shahbazian

District Court, E.D. California · Nov 19, 2025

No. 34 at 2:18-22). 17 It is well established that qualified immunity is an affirmative defense, and one that does 18 not require additional facts to be sufficiently plead … Aug. 9, 2018) (stating that 20 “qualified immunity is sufficiently pleaded without additional factual bases.”).

(PC) Ransom v. Herr

District Court, E.D. California · Jul 6, 2022

Qualified Immunity 2 Government officials enjoy qualified immunity from civil damages unless their 3 conduct violates “clearly established statutory or constitutional … 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

(PS) Iliya v. County of Sacramento

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

Qualified Immunity 17 Qualified immunity protects government officials “from liability for civil damages 18 insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory … a 25 constitutional right; and (2) if so, whether the right was clearly established in light of the 26 specific context of the case.

(PC) Najera v. West

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

Second, Defendant is entitled to qualified immunity 7 because he did not violate a clearly established constitutional or statutory right of which a 8 reasonable prison official would have known. … Alternatively, 11 Defendant is entitled to qualified immunity because he did not violate a clearly established right of 12 which a reasonable official would have known.

(PC) Hardy v. Santoro

District Court, E.D. California · Jun 13, 2024

that Defendants conduct was clearly 13 unconstitutional that would defeat their entitlement to qualified immunity. … For purposes of qualified immunity, “[a] 28 right is clearly established when it is sufficiently clear that every reasonable official would have 1 understood that what he is doing violates that right.”

(PC) Vallery v. Botkin

District Court, E.D. California · Dec 18, 2020

Second, was the constitutional right clearly 13 established? Id. … On these grounds, defendants argue that they are entitled to qualified immunity. 24 The undersigned agrees there is no clearly established law recognizing an inmate’s right to 25 a truthful Counseling Only Rules