Case law
Opinions from 1658 to today.
6,306 results
1.49s
District Court, E.D. California · Mar 16, 2021
immunity and that the magistrate 17 judge examined qualified immunity at an extremely high level of 18 generality. … It is clearly established that denial of medical 8 care can violate the Eighth Amendment and that a violation occurs 9 when a prison official causes injury as a result of at his 10 deliberate indifference
Cited 0 timesUnknownLevine v. Fair Political Practices Commission
222 F. Supp. 2d 1182 · District Court, E.D. California · Sep 23, 2002
Rather, “a state ‘waive[s] its Eleventh Amendment immunity by conduct that is incompatible with an intent to preserve that immunity.’ ” Indus. Comm’n of Ariz. v. … Clearly, it is not. Present California law provides a less restrictive means for preventing a fraud on the electorate.
Cited 1 timesPublishedDistrict Court, E.D. California · Apr 10, 2020
But because the right was not clearly 5 established when the seizure occurred, Lunardi is entitled to 6 qualified immunity. … Clearly Established 12 A law enforcement officer who violates a person’s 13 constitutional rights will still be entitled to qualified 14 immunity if
Cited 0 timesUnknownDistrict Court, E.D. California · May 15, 2025
“In § 1983 actions, 22 qualified immunity protects government officials from liability for civil damages insofar as their 23 conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a … Further, in the prison context, the “prohibition against retaliatory punishment 8 is ‘clearly established law’ in the Ninth Circuit for qualified immunity purposes.”
Cited 0 timesUnknownDistrict Court, E.D. California · Aug 6, 2019
Ramirez–Palmer, 10 301 F.3d 1043, 1053 (9th Cir. 2002). 11 “For the second step in the qualified immunity analysis—whether the constitutional right 12 was clearly established at … The standards 8 | for what constitute excessive force were certainly clearly established in 2016, as they are now. 9 | Defendant is not entitled to qualified immunity on summary judgment. 10 For the foregoing
Cited 0 timesUnknownDistrict 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.”
Cited 0 timesUnknownDistrict Court, E.D. California · Sep 26, 2023
immunity because there is not clearly 14 established caselaw governing the facts at issue here. … Fourth, citing the Court’s prior denial of qualified immunity in 24 this case, he argues that Defendants’ second attempt at qualified immunity
Cited 0 timesUnknown(PC) Smithee v. California Correctional Institution
District Court, E.D. California · Aug 19, 2020
Qualified Immunity 15 Defendants also contend that plaintiffs’ Eighth Amendment claim should be dismissed as 16 barred by qualified immunity. (Doc. … Based on these facts, the Ninth Circuit held 9 that there was a triable issue as to whether plaintiff’s constitutional right was clearly established 10 and, thus, the defendant was not entitled to qualified immunity on
Cited 0 timesUnknownCarne v. Stanislaus County Animal Services Agency
District Court, E.D. California · Apr 7, 2023
immunity and argue that 20 “there is no clearly established law.” … To determine if law is clearly established 21 for qualified immunity purposes, binding authority is first consulted: “If the right is clearly 22 established by decisional authority of the Supreme Court or this Circuit
Cited 0 timesUnknownDistrict Court, E.D. California · Mar 28, 2022
Qualified immunity shields government officials from money damages unless their 9 conduct violated “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights.” Kisela v. … See Pratt, 65 F.3d at 806 & n.4 (stating “[t]he 3 prohibition against retaliatory punishment [for filing prison grievances] is ‘clearly established 4 law’ in the Ninth Circuit, for qualified immunity purposes.”).
Cited 0 timesUnknownDistrict Court, E.D. California · Sep 27, 2021
Qualified Immunity 2 Qualified immunity “protects government officials from liability for civil damages insofar 3 as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or … Pelletier, 516 U.S. 299, 311–12 (1996) (qualified immunity may provide 7 immunity from certain claims and not reach all claims).
Cited 0 timesUnknownDistrict 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.”).
Cited 0 timesUnknownDistrict Court, E.D. California · Mar 24, 2020
2 and does not violate clearly-established federal rights.” … the right was clearly established.
Cited 0 timesUnknownDistrict Court, E.D. California · May 21, 2024
position would believe that his conduct 24 was unlawful and the law was not clearly established that Defendant could be held liable for such 25 conduct.” … Id. 1 Qualified immunity is a proper affirmative defense. See Norwood v. Vance, 591 F.3d 2 1062, 1075 (9th Cir. 2010) (“Qualified immunity is an affirmative defense that must be pleaded in 3 the answer.”).
Cited 0 timesUnknownRodriguez v. County of San Joaquin
District Court, E.D. California · Mar 31, 2021
Qualified Immunity 2 In § 1983 actions, qualified immunity “protects government officials from civil liability 3 where ‘their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory … Therefore, Evans is 15 entitled to qualified immunity under both prongs of the Saucier analysis.
Cited 0 timesUnknownDistrict Court, E.D. California · Oct 19, 2022
A government official is entitled to 1 qualified immunity under Section 1983 unless (1) the officer violated a federal a federal statutory 2 or constitutional right, and (2) the unlawfulness of his conduct was “clearly … The plaintiff bears the burden of establishing that the right alleged 16 was clearly established. Moran v. Washington, 47 F.3d 839, 844 (9th Cir. 1998). 17 B.
Cited 0 timesUnknownDistrict Court, E.D. California · Oct 8, 2021
Qualified Immunity 9 The doctrine of qualified immunity protects government officials from civil liability 10 where “their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory … Id. at 236. 21 “For the second step in the qualified immunity analysis—whether the constitutional right 22 was clearly established at the time of the conduct—the critical question is whether the contours of 23
Cited 0 timesUnknownDistrict Court, E.D. California · Apr 24, 2023
Qualified Immunity 17 Defendants argue that even if there was a constitutional violation, Officer Clay is entitled 18 to qualified immunity. … “A government official’s entitlement to qualified immunity depends on 19 (1) whether there has been a violation of a constitutional right; and (2) whether that right was 20 clearly established at the time of the officer
Cited 0 timesUnknownDistrict Court, E.D. California · Sep 16, 2020
On August 17, 2020, 19 Defendants moved to dismiss the complaint, based in part on a defense of qualified immunity. 20 (ECF No. 46). … To do so, the court must determine whether, assuming the truth of the 5 plaintiff's allegations, the official's conduct violated clearly established law. . . .
Cited 0 timesUnknownDistrict Court, E.D. California · Jul 22, 2020
“Qualified immunity protects government officers ‘from 19 liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not 20 violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of 21 which a … violated was 26 not “‘clearly established’ at the time of defendant’s alleged 27 misconduct.”
Cited 0 timesUnknown
Ask Donna