Case law
Opinions from 1658 to today.
6,306 results
1.52s
District Court, E.D. California · Dec 13, 2022
(Id. at 4-5.) 22 Lastly, Plaintiff addresses the defense of qualified immunity, arguing that no 23 governmental official is entitled to qualified immunity in § 1983 cases because federal common 24 … (Id. at 5.) 20 Lastly, with respect to the issue of qualified immunity, Defendant first notes that 21 Plaintiff’s declaration is deficient on its face because is not dated
Cited 0 timesUnknownDistrict Court, E.D. California · Mar 10, 2025
Alternatively, defendants argue 21 that they are entitled to qualified immunity on both claims. Id. at 15-16. 22 B. … clearly established statutory or 5 constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.”
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 · Feb 10, 2021
The 14 qualified immunity defense is available to defendants if 15 plaintiff’s Fourth Amendment rights at issue in this case were 16 not clearly established at the time that defendants … Bryant, 502 U.S. 224, 228 (2009). 5 Qualified immunity attaches when an official’s conduct does not 6 violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of 7 which a reasonable person would
Cited 0 timesUnknownDistrict Court, E.D. California · Jul 14, 2020
Ordinarily, once the court 19 concludes that a right was clearly established, an officer is not entitled to qualified immunity 20 because a reasonably competent public official is charged with knowing the law governing … However, even if the plaintiff 22 has alleged a violation of a clearly established right, the government official is entitled to 23 qualified immunity if he could have “. . . reasonably but mistakenly believed that his
Cited 0 timesUnknownDistrict Court, E.D. California · Dec 10, 2025
(See Docket No. 12 at 17-18.) 27 But plaintiff does not cite a single case in which a prosecutor was found to not be protected by qualified immunity for their 28 conduct before a grand jury. … Regarding whether Devencenzi and 25 Vallotton failed to disclose exculpatory evidence and knowingly 26 used false testimony, the Ninth Circuit has established that 27 absolute immunity extends
Cited 0 timesUnknownDistrict Court, E.D. California · Mar 5, 2020
But qualified immunity shields state officials 9 from liability when the conduct challenged “does not violate 10 clearly established statutory or constitutional rights.” Harlow 11 v. … Absent a violation of clearly 18 established constitutional law, Defendants conclude they are 19 entitled to qualified immunity against Plaintiff’s Fourth 20 Amendment claims in their
Cited 0 timesUnknownUnited States v. Estate Preservation Services
38 F. Supp. 2d 846 · District Court, E.D. California · Oct 5, 1998
were clearly illegal. … As a result, the statements clearly qualify as “material” within the meaning of section 6700. B. Whether an Injunction is Necessary to Prevent Recurrence.
Cited 5 timesPublished(PC) Rader v. County of Placer
District Court, E.D. California · Mar 21, 2025
by admissible 25 evidence and are irrelevant to the issue of qualified immunity. … Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 675 (2009). 23 The doctrine of qualified immunity “protects government officials from ‘liability for civil 24 damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or
Cited 0 timesUnknownUnited States v. Westlands Water District
134 F. Supp. 2d 1111 · District Court, E.D. California · Mar 13, 2001
“When sovereign immunity is at issue, the government is immune from a suit, whether couched as an original claim or as a counter claim, unless it has waived its immunity.” United States v. $277,000 U.S. … The provision is a waiver of the sovereign immunity of the United States.”). 98 .
Cited 280 timesPublishedDistrict Court, E.D. California · Jan 6, 2025
28 U.S.C. § 2254(d) differs from whether it was clearly established 18 by circuit precedent or for the purposes of qualified immunity. … To be clearly established for 19 purposes of qualified immunity, “a legal principle must have a sufficiently clear foundation in 20 then-existing precedent.
Cited 0 timesUnknownDistrict Court, E.D. California · Mar 15, 2023
Defendants 24 contend that plaintiff’s allegations fail to state an Eighth Amendment failure to protect claim and 25 that defendants are entitled to qualified immunity. ECF No. 31. … Defendants further submit that they are entitled to qualified 3 immunity because the amended complaint does not show a constitutional violation and even if it 4 did, it was not clearly established that their conduct violated
Cited 0 timesUnknownDistrict Court, E.D. California · May 6, 2022
of an Eighth Amendment claim, defendants argue they are entitled to qualified immunity. … In 18 addition, defendants contend that there was no clearly established law requiring that plaintiff be 19 released early from his valid incarceration, and plaintiff did not have a clearly established right to 20 be
Cited 0 timesUnknownDistrict Court, E.D. California · Dec 30, 2022
Even if the plaintiff has alleged a violation of a clearly 18 established right, the official is protected by qualified immunity if he “reasonably but mistakenly 19 believed that his . . . conduct did not violate that … Gomez, 108 F.3d 265, 269 (9th Cir. 1997)). 19 The “prohibition against retaliatory punishment is ‘clearly established law’ in the Ninth 20 Circuit for qualified immunity purposes.” Chavez v.
Cited 0 timesUnknownDistrict Court, E.D. California · Jan 24, 2022
To defeat qualified 8 immunity on summary judgment, a plaintiff must “[r]aise[] a genuine issue of fact showing (1) a 9 violation of a constitutional right, and (2) that the right was clearly established at the time … The Supreme Court’s statement in this regard 5 was made in connection with consideration of the second step of the qualified-immunity analysis, 6 i.e., whether the violated right was clearly established at the time
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 timesUnknownDistrict Court, E.D. California · Sep 23, 2025
He also argues that defendant is not entitled to 7 qualified immunity. Id. at 6. 8 C. … Qualified Immunity 22 “[G]overnment officials performing discretionary functions generally are shielded from 23 liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly
Cited 0 timesUnknownDistrict Court, E.D. California · Sep 5, 2019
Qualified Immunity 9 Government officials enjoy qualified immunity from civil damages unless their 10 conduct violates “clearly established statutory or constitutional … She should be entitled to qualified immunity. 4 5 Qualified immunity shields government officials who, in the face of clearly 6 established
Cited 0 timesUnknownDistrict Court, E.D. California · Oct 2, 2025
a constitutional violation 27 under § 1985, it appears defendants would likely be entitled to qualified immunity because it is not clearly established that a § 1985 conspiracy can arise from acts between agents of … Qualified Immunity 23 The doctrine of qualified immunity “protects government officials from ‘liability for civil 24 damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly
Cited 0 timesUnknownDistrict Court, E.D. California · Oct 17, 2025
Plaintiff opposes Defendants’ requests and argues he should be allowed to 27 make an argument about Defendants’ affirmative defense of qualified immunity. (Doc. No. 170 at 28 4.) … To the extent Plaintiff is seeking to 4 | argue the issue of qualified immunity to the jury, it is important to note that the court, not the 5 | jury, decides the legal issue of qualified immunity. See Morales v.
Cited 0 timesUnknown
Ask Donna