Case law

(PC) Taylor v. Carbullido

District Court, E.D. California · Aug 9, 2023

“Government officials enjoy qualified immunity from 14 civil damages unless their conduct violates ‘clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of 15 which a reasonable person would have known.’” … a statutory 19 or constitutional right; and (2) whether the right at issue was clearly established at the time of the 20 incident.

Wayne McKay v. Yuba County, et al.

District Court, E.D. California · Dec 3, 2025

Qualified Immunity on Plaintiff’s Personal Seizure Claim 14 Defendants argue that they are entitled to qualified immunity on plaintiff’s claim that they 15 unlawfully seized his person. … Qualified immunity precludes civil liability under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 16 for state officials if “their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional 17 rights of which a reasonable person would

Hood v. Hartford Life & Accident Insurance

567 F. Supp. 2d 1221 · District Court, E.D. California · Jul 28, 2008

The text of the statute clearly indicates that Section 3345 applies to the UCA and CLRA, as both Acts prohibit “unfair practices.” … Were defendant’s argument to be accepted, insurance companies would be immune from civil liability despite engaging in unfair practices.

Rivas

District Court, E.D. California · Mar 31, 2026

23 established’ right” and that qualified immunity bars Plaintiff’s claims. … Qualified Immunity 17 Defendants additionally argue that they are entitled to qualified immunity because “[t]here 18 is no clearly established law or binding authority that would have

Pallares

District Court, E.D. California · Dec 15, 2025

Defendant argues he is entitled to qualified 24 immunity because “it is not clearly established that convicted inmates can state a ‘bodily 25 integrity’ claim under the Fourteenth Amendment.” … Qualified Immunity 19 Pallares argues he is entitled to qualified immunity on Plaintiff’s claims. (Doc. No. 40 at 20 7, 10-11).

Smith v. County of Sacramento

District Court, E.D. California · Sep 29, 2023

Qualified Immunity. 11 Finally, Defendant contends that even if she acted under color of state law, she is entitled 12 to qualified immunity. … In opposition, Plaintiffs argue Defendant is 13 not entitled to qualified immunity because she violated clearly established federal law.

(PC) Baker v. Lynch

District Court, E.D. California · May 26, 2021

“clearly established” at the time of the violation. … Law is clearly established—for the purposes of qualified 4 immunity analysis—if every reasonable official would have understood that their conduct violated 5 the relevant right.

Porter v. Solano County Sheriff's Office

District Court, E.D. California · Dec 21, 2022

10 Defendants argue Officers Williams and Hollingshead are entitled to qualified immunity 11 against the three Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment claims above because “there is no clearly 12 established precedent to … In opposition, plaintiffs 13 argue the officers are not entitled to qualified immunity because “[w]hile a right may be clearly 14 established by decisional law, it can also be self-evident in light of pre-existing law

Chico Feminist Women's Health Center v. Butte Glenn Medical Society

557 F. Supp. 1190 · District Court, E.D. California · Feb 23, 1983

First, it is now clearly established that the right of privacy guaranteed by Article I, § 1 encompasses a woman’s right to choose between childbirth and abortion. … Wilmington Parking Authority, 365 U.S. 715 , 81 S.Ct. 856, 862 , 6 L.Ed.2d 45 (1961), is clearly established by the discussion of that case in Rendell-Baker v.

Bernal

District Court, E.D. California · Aug 5, 2026

In Chism, the district court granted the defendants’ motion for summary 2 judgment on the defense of qualified immunity. 2012 WL 1945476, at *1. … 12 immunity.

(PS) Haymore v. United States

District Court, E.D. California · Aug 1, 2025

SCREENING 26 A determination that a plaintiff qualifies financially for in forma pauperis status does not 27 complete the inquiry required by the statute. … Disagreement with district court orders does not establish a civil rights 6 violation. Moreover, the named defendants with respect to these causes of action are all immune 7 from suit.

(PC) Garcia v. Folks

District Court, E.D. California · Feb 5, 2020

Legal Standards 22 Government officials enjoy qualified immunity from civil damages unless their conduct 23 violates clearly established statutory or constitutional rights. … Ramirez–Palmer, 7 301 F.3d 1043, 1053 (9th Cir. 2002). 8 “For the second step in the qualified immunity analysis—whether the constitutional right 9 was clearly established at the

(PC) Clemente v. Stinson

District Court, E.D. California · Feb 25, 2022

Qualified Immunity 27 Defendant argues in the alternative that he is entitled to qualified immunity. … first question might be answered in his favor, I turn to whether the law was clearly established 8 at the time.

Stallings v. Ferrera

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

Qualified Immunity 18 Ahlin argues she is entitled to qualified immunity because “Plaintiff cannot show that any 19 [c]onstitutional right that may have been violated was clearly … injured party, show the defendants’ conduct violated a constitutional 27 right; and (2) whether the right was clearly established.

(PC) Rood v. Swarthout

District Court, E.D. California · Oct 29, 2021

Qualified Immunity 2 Government officials enjoy qualified immunity from civil damages unless their 3 conduct violates “clearly established statutory or constitutional … And even if the Court concluded the 14 Defendants did violate a clearly established right, they would be entitled to qualified immunity 15 because the undisputed evidence shows that the Defendants acted reasonably by

(PC) Guy v. Espinoza

District Court, E.D. California · Jan 21, 2020

QUALIFIED IMMUNITY 24 “The doctrine of qualified immunity protects government officials ‘from liability for 25 civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate … clearly established statutory or 26 constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.’”

Hernandez v. Afscme Cal.

386 F. Supp. 3d 1300 · District Court, E.D. California · Jun 20, 2019

They argue that defenses like qualified immunity and good faith are categorically inapplicable to claims for equitable relief. See Wood v. … The party seeking to invoke this court's jurisdiction bears the burden of establishing that jurisdiction exists. Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins.

California, Department of Social Services v. Shalala

115 F. Supp. 2d 1191 · District Court, E.D. California · Sep 1, 2000

Mathews, 609 F.2d 949, 954 (9th Cir.1979) (“if an agency’s interpretation of a statute or regulation is not clearly outside its authority, then the courts should defer to the agen *1195 cy’s expertise”); Baker v. … Moreover, because the Secretary never consented to suit in state court and did not exceed her statutory authority, the doctrine of sovereign immunity precludes a finding that the Secretary is bound by the Land decision. *

In re U.S. Dep't of Justice Motion to Compel Facebook to Provide Technical Assistance in Sealed Case

357 F. Supp. 3d 1041 · District Court, E.D. California · Feb 11, 2019

Accordingly, no qualified First Amendment right of access attaches to the materials/procedures sought. … Even if the qualified right did attach, the compelling interest of the DOJ to preserve the secrecy of law enforcement techniques in Title III wiretap cases overwhelms that qualified right.

(PC) Elias v. Kinross

District Court, E.D. California · Jul 12, 2022

QUALIFIED IMMUNITY 27 Qualified immunity shields government officials from monetary damages unless their 28 conduct violated “clearly established statutory or constitutional … “In evaluating a 2 grant of qualified immunity, a court considers whether (1) the state actor’s conduct violated a 3 constitutional right and (2) the right was clearly established at the time of the alleged 4 misconduct