Case law

Barnes v. County of Placer

654 F. Supp. 2d 1066 · District Court, E.D. California · Jun 30, 2009

Qualified Immunity Qualified immunity is a defense to lawsuits against governmental officials arising out of the performance of their duties. … without first obtaining a warrant and keep them in custody until the Placer County Juvenile Court ordered their release did not violate clearly established law.

Lopez v. Youngblood

609 F. Supp. 2d 1125 · District Court, E.D. California · Mar 31, 2009

Re: Court Returnees, Qualified Immunity and Eleventh Amendment Immunity 16). … Re: Court Returnees, Qualified Immunity and Eleventh Amendment Immunity 20-21).

Ortiz v. Alvarez

341 F. Supp. 3d 1087 · District Court, E.D. California · Sep 21, 2018

Government officials enjoy qualified immunity from civil damages unless their conduct violates clearly established statutory or constitutional rights. Jeffers v. … In evaluating a qualified immunity defense, the court first considers: (1) whether the defendant's conduct violated a statutory or constitutional right; and (2) whether the right at issue was "clearly established."

Ambrose v. Coffey

696 F. Supp. 2d 1109 · District Court, E.D. California · Dec 24, 2009

Whether Weydert and Coffey are Entitled to Qualified Immunity. 6 1. Grounds for Qualified Immunity Defendants argue that they are entitled to qualified immunity because it is not clearly established that MUAs are legal. … Weydert and Coffey are “entitled to qualified immunity where clearly established law does not show” their actions *1115 violated the Constitution. Pearson v.

Cerniglia v. County of Sacramento

566 F. Supp. 2d 1034 · District Court, E.D. California · Jun 17, 2008

The issue of qualified immunity was not before the Ninth Circuit in Jones , consequently it did not address the issue. Qualified immunity was, however, before the Court in Hy-drick. … In analyzing qualified immunity with respect to the substantive due process claim and holding that it was clearly established that the substantive due process protections of the Fourteenth Amendment apply to SVPs, 500 F.3d

(PS) Petersen v. Sims

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

if it was clearly 5 established.” … immunity or 7 the specific question of whether Defendant’s conduct violated a right clearly established at the 8 time.

Figueroa v. Kern County

District Court, E.D. California · Mar 4, 2021

Id. 21 “Prosecutors are protected by qualified, rather than absolute, immunity when they perform 22 activities outside their core role as courtroom advocates.” Id.; see also Kalina v. … Fletcher, 522 23 U.S. 118, 130-31 (1997) (qualified immunity attached for attesting to facts in support of a search 24 warrant). 25 In his opposition

Toler v. Paulson

551 F. Supp. 2d 1039 · District Court, E.D. California · Mar 14, 2008

Qualified Immunity Defendants also argue that they are entitled to qualified immunity. … In analyzing claims involving qualified immunity, courts engage in a two-part test.

(PC) Hardney v. Warren

District Court, E.D. California · Dec 5, 2022

Qualified Immunity 2 Alternatively, Kumeh lays claim to qualified immunity. … See Moonin, 868 F.3d 13 at 873-74 (denying qualified immunity because controlling Ninth Circuit authority established the 14 applicable general rules and cases from three other circuit courts and several district courts

Olvera v. County of Sacramento

932 F. Supp. 2d 1123 · District Court, E.D. California · Mar 19, 2013

If the court concludes a right is not clearly established, the official is entitled to qualified immunity. Id. at 202, 121 S.Ct. 2151 . … If a right is clearly established, an official is not entitled to qualified immunity unless a • reasonable official would not have known that his conduct violated the clearly established right.

Robinson v. Cnty. of Shasta

384 F. Supp. 3d 1137 · District Court, E.D. California · May 1, 2019

Turning to the second prong of the qualified immunity analysis, the court notes that clearly established law must be defined with a "high 'degree of specificity.' " District of Columbia v. Wesby , --- U.S. ----, 138 S. … Ultimately, because no controlling authority had yet clearly established as unconstitutional the use of a taser in dart mode, as used by the officer, the officer was entitled to qualified immunity. Id. at 833.

Henderson v. Bakersfield Police Department

District Court, E.D. California · Apr 15, 2022

City of Orange, 485 F.3d 463, 476 (9th Cir. 2007) (Stating it was “clearly established long ago 20 that an officer may not conduct a warrantless arrest absent probable cause.”). 21 While Plaintiff did not directly … Further, while 24 Plaintiff has not named a judge or judicial officer, even if he had, they are generally immune 25 from such suits, as it “is generally well established that ‘granting bail and fixing its amount are

Creighton v. City of Livingston

628 F. Supp. 2d 1199 · District Court, E.D. California · May 19, 2009

established to preclude qualified immunity. … , the law regarding free speech retaliation claims will rarely if ever be clearly established to preclude qualified immunity.

PACIFIC MARINE CENTER, INC. v. Silva

809 F. Supp. 2d 1266 · District Court, E.D. California · Aug 22, 2011

Qualified immunity serves to shield government officials “from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or con *1288 stitutional rights of which a reasonable person … Courts have “discretion to grant qualified immunity on the basis of the ‘clearly established’ prong, alone, without deciding in the first instance whether any right had been violated.” James v.

Megargee v. Wittman

550 F. Supp. 2d 1190 · District Court, E.D. California · Mar 19, 2008

Baker’s conduct was not clearly established as of June 6, 2005.” … Qualified immunity protects section 1983 defendants “from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have

Estate of Casillas v. City of Fresno

342 F. Supp. 3d 990 · District Court, E.D. California · Oct 23, 2018

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 … Rather, "clearly established law must be particularized to the facts of the case." Id.

Rogers v. County of San Joaquin Human Services Agency

363 F. Supp. 2d 1227 · District Court, E.D. California · Dec 10, 2004

In cases such as this, when the constitutional violation depends on an “objective reasonableness” standard similar to that used to establish qualified immunity, the constitutional and qualified immunity *1232 questions become … Alternatively, even if the children were not in immediate danger, defendants contend that they are nevertheless entitled to qualified immunity for the removal because the law was not clearly established as to when children

Oxborrow v. City of Coalinga

559 F. Supp. 2d 1072 · District Court, E.D. California · May 29, 2008

“In order to be entitled to qualified immunity, the officers must show that their discretionary conduct did not violate any clearly established rights of which a reasonable person should have known.” Penilla v. … “[Qualified immunity shields agents ... if ‘a reasonable officer could have believed [the action] to be lawful, in light of clearly established law and the information the [arresting] officers possessed.’ ” Hunter v.

Fireman's Fund Ins. Co. v. City of Lodi, Cal.

41 F. Supp. 2d 1100 · District Court, E.D. California · Feb 25, 1999

First, the court must determine whether the law governing the officials’ conduct was clearly established at the time the officials acted. If the law was not clearly established, qualified immunity applies. … If the law was clearly established, the court must determine whether reasonable officials would have believed that their actions were lawful. If the court so finds, the officials are entitled to qualified immunity.

Keker v. Procunier

398 F. Supp. 756 · District Court, E.D. California · Aug 8, 1975

Rhodes, supra, clarified the rule that public officials of the executive branch have a “qualified immunity” from suit under § 1983. … Clearly, the “qualified immunity” of executive officers may be an extremely broad one. Nevertheless, Scheuer v.