Case law
Opinions from 1658 to today.
6,306 results
1.25s
District 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 timesUnknownCity of Lincoln v. United States
283 F. Supp. 3d 891 · District Court, E.D. California · Sep 25, 2017
The FTCA contains several exceptions to its waiver of sovereign immunity. See 28 U.S.C. § 2680 (a) - (n). … First, the City argues defendants were limited to using one of five types of approved disposal facilities, and the Lincoln Dump did not qualify. Opp'n at 25.
Cited 2 timesPublishedDistrict Court, E.D. California · Jun 16, 2026
that qualified immunity is an 11 affirmative defense, and one that does not require additional facts to be sufficiently plead. … Aug. 9, 2018) (stating that “qualified 13 immunity is sufficiently pleaded without additional factual bases”) (citing Kaur, 2016 WL 627308, at *3).
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 timesUnknownDistrict Court, E.D. California · Sep 10, 2021
Qualified Immunity 24 Finally, the Court acknowledges County Defendants have raised a qualified immunity 25 argument and briefly addresses it herein. See Saucier v. … the right was clearly established.
Cited 0 timesUnknownDistrict Court, E.D. California · Jan 22, 2025
Since at least 1979, the law has been clearly established, that the Due 10 Process Clause prohibits deliberate punishment of pretrial detainees. Bell v. … Defendants are 12 not entitled to summary judgment based on a finding of qualified immunity. 13 II.
Cited 0 timesUnknownDistrict Court, E.D. California · Sep 23, 2020
The Court agrees. 4 Government officials enjoy qualified immunity from civil damages unless their 5 conduct violates “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of … However, even if the plaintiff 28 has alleged a violation of a clearly established right, the government official is entitled to 1 qualified immunity if he could have “. . . reasonably but mistakenly believed that his
Cited 0 timesUnknownDistrict Court, E.D. California · Nov 5, 2025
“Qualified immunity attaches when an official’s conduct does not violate clearly 18 established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” 19 Kisela, 584 U.S. at 104 (quoting White … A plaintiff cannot rely on such general propositions to refute an officer’s 26 assertion of qualified immunity because a district court must not define “clearly established law at 27 a high level of generality.”
Cited 0 timesUnknownDistrict Court, E.D. California · Aug 5, 2019
“The second prong of the qualified- 4 immunity analysis asks whether the right in question was ‘clearly established’ at the time of the 5 violation.” Id. at 656 (citation omitted). … in question was clearly established at the time of the violation.
Cited 0 timesUnknownDeFilippo v. County of Stanislaus
District Court, E.D. California · Sep 14, 2022
Qualified Immunity 23 City Defendants argue Evers is entitled to qualified immunity. … (ECF No. 106 at 27.) 26 In § 1983 actions, qualified immunity “protects government officials from civil liability 27 where ‘their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of
Cited 0 timesUnknownDistrict Court, E.D. California · Mar 28, 2022
First Affirmative Defense: Qualified Immunity 14 As his first affirmative defense, Defendant asserts his “actions were reasonable and not in 15 violation of any clearly established right” and “is entitled … to qualified immunity.”
Cited 0 timesUnknown(PS) Crocker v. County of Amador
District Court, E.D. California · Feb 7, 2024
“Qualified immunity operates . . . … “Qualified immunity is applicable 26 unless the official’s conduct violated a clearly established constitutional right.” Id.
Cited 0 timesUnknownDistrict Court, E.D. California · Oct 2, 2025
In the alternative, defendants Abraham, Arciga, Farhat, Reyes, Thomas, and Sarai 6 maintain they are entitled to qualified immunity because it was not clearly established that failure 7 to activate an alarm is a violation … Qualified Immunity 22 Like defendant Strope, defendant Branion is not entitled to qualified immunity.
Cited 0 timesUnknownDistrict Court, E.D. California · Apr 8, 2026
Plaintiff argues that the doctrine of qualified immunity protects government 19 officials from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly 20 established statutory or constitutional rights … Plaintiff additionally argues 4 that a constitutional right is clearly established for qualified immunity purposes if the official had 5 fair notice that his conduct was unlawful but still engaged in it.
Cited 0 timesUnknownDistrict Court, E.D. California · Jul 20, 2020
Dec. 13, 21 2018) (granting qualified immunity where plaintiff “apparently concede[d] officer did not violate 22 a “clearly established” right). 23 Officers Rasmussen … Rasmussen and Washko are, however, 10 entitled to qualified immunity because plaintiffs fail to show they violated clearly established law. 11 Moreover, no genuine question of fact exists with respect to plaintiffs’
Cited 0 timesUnknownDistrict Court, E.D. California · Nov 20, 2024
The plaintiff bears the burden of establishing that the right alleged 11 was clearly established. Moran v. … 28 For the same reason, Defendant Edwards is entitled to qualified immunity, because his 1 | failure to refer Plaintiff to outside medical or dental care did not violate Plaintiffs clearly 2 | established right
Cited 0 timesUnknownDistrict Court, E.D. California · Sep 4, 2019
Qualified Immunity 3 Government officials enjoy qualified immunity from civil damages unless their 4 conduct violates “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights … However, even if the plaintiff 28 has alleged a violation of a clearly established right, the government official is entitled to 1 qualified immunity if he could have “. . . reasonably but mistakenly believed that his
Cited 0 timesUnknownDistrict Court, E.D. California · Sep 30, 2024
(Id.) 22 The magistrate judge found it was not necessary to Defendants’ arguments related to 23 qualified immunity because Plaintiff failed to establish the defendants violated his constitutional … Qualified immunity 23 Plaintiff argues that Defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity on the claims 24 raised. (Doc. 60 at 6-7.)
Cited 0 timesUnknown
Ask Donna