Case law
Opinions from 1658 to today.
6,306 results
2.33s
Harris v. Henry Miller Reclamation District No. 2131
District Court, E.D. California · Jan 24, 2022
The doctrine of qualified 13 immunity shields government officials performing discretionary functions from such liability 14 “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights … “When, as here, defendants assert qualified 8 immunity in a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), dismissal is not appropriate unless [a court] 9 can determine, based on the complaint itself, that qualified immunity
Cited 0 timesUnknownStratton v. Oroville City Elementary School District
District Court, E.D. California · Mar 18, 2025
Immunity 25 In the alternative, Mgbam argues she is entitled to qualified immunity. … Callahan, 555 U.S. 223, 236 (2009) 9 (noting it may be difficult to begin and end by analyzing the “clearly established prong” because 10 it can be “difficult to decide whether a right is clearly established without deciding
Cited 0 timesUnknownPhipps v. Gary Drilling Co., Inc.
722 F. Supp. 615 · District Court, E.D. California · Aug 4, 1989
The undisputed facts clearly establish that plaintiff hit power lines on at least three separate occasions. … While this testimony might show that plaintiff is qualified, it does not establish that he met defendant’s expectations for job performance. See Long v. First Family Financial Services, 677 F.Supp. 1226 (S.D.Ga. 1987).
Cited 8 timesPublishedDistrict Court, E.D. California · Aug 5, 2019
on the basis of “qualified 8 immunity.” … “Government officials enjoy qualified immunity from civil damages unless their 9 conduct violates ‘clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable 10 person would have known.’”
Cited 0 timesUnknownDistrict Court, E.D. California · Jul 27, 2020
Summary judgment is thus inappropriate. 13 Defendants also argue that they are entitled to qualified immunity. … Such rights were clearly established in 21 2015. “It has been clearly established since at least 2007 that an officer may not punch an arrestee 22 without provocation.” Robinson v. Cty. of Shasta, 384 F.
Cited 0 timesUnknownDistrict Court, E.D. California · Jan 13, 2025
SCREENING REQUIREMENT 23 A determination that a plaintiff qualifies financially for IFP status does not 24 complete the inquiry required by the statute. … The 11 Complaint also does not clearly state the elements of any claim. See Compl.
Cited 0 timesUnknownDistrict Court, E.D. California · Dec 8, 2021
Qualified Immunity 13 Government officials enjoy qualified immunity from civil damages unless their 14 conduct violates “clearly established statutory or constitutional … Ordinarily, once the court 7 concludes that a right was clearly established, an officer is not entitled to qualified immunity 8 because a reasonably competent public official is charged with knowing the law governing
Cited 0 timesUnknownDistrict Court, E.D. California · Aug 30, 2021
QUALIFIED IMMUNITY 11 The Court next considers Castellanos’ argument that he is entitled to qualified immunity 12 because he did not violate Plaintiff’s constitutional … immunity from civil damages unless their conduct 16 violates “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would 17 have known.”
Cited 0 timesUnknownDistrict Court, E.D. California · Mar 29, 2021
Williams 11 recommendation against surgery for plaintiff, “clearly” establishes a “difference of opinion 12 between medical professionals,” namely with Dr. Senegor and Dr. … immunity grounds.
Cited 0 timesUnknownRodriguez v. County of San Joaquin
District Court, E.D. California · Mar 30, 2022
(ECF No. 28 at 19.) 8 In § 1983 actions, qualified immunity “protects government officials from civil liability 9 where ‘their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of … Accordingly, Defendants’ qualified immunity argument must be rejected. 26 Considering the allegations of the SAC and declining to accept Defendants’ qualified 27 immunity argument at this early stage of the litigation
Cited 0 timesUnknownDistrict Court, E.D. California · Jul 24, 2026
immunity. … For the purposes of determining qualified immunity, however, I must view the 23 evidence in the light most favorable to plaintiff, see Sandoval v.
Cited 0 timesUnknownDistrict Court, E.D. California · Feb 27, 2020
Qualified Immunity 17 1. … As the Ninth Circuit held, the resolution of both the “clearly established” and 25 “reasonableness” inquiries in Defendants’ favor depend upon the
Cited 0 timesUnknownDistrict Court, E.D. California · Mar 18, 2025
clearly established statutory or 16 constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” … a statutory or constitutional right; and (2) 20 whether the right at issue was clearly established at the time of the incident.
Cited 0 timesUnknownDistrict Court, E.D. California · Apr 1, 2026
Thus, 21 Defendants Canepa and Merritt are entitled to qualified immunity, 22 which shields public officials from liability under 42 U.S.C. 23 § 1983 unless “(1) they violated a federal statutory … or 24 constitutional right, and (2) the unlawfulness of their conduct 25 was clearly established at the time” of the violation.
Cited 0 timesUnknown(PC) Linarez-Rodriguez v. Honea
District Court, E.D. California · Oct 31, 2023
they are entitled to qualified immunity. 17 Determining whether officials receive qualified immunity involves two inquiries: (1) 18 whether “taken in the light most favorable to the party asserting the injury,” … Fourteenth Amendment claims, and also argue that it is not 1 clearly established that their conduct violated the Constitution.
Cited 0 timesUnknownDistrict Court, E.D. California · Apr 27, 2023
rule on qualified immunity.” 28 S.R. … Qualified Immunity 2 Defendants also assert qualified immunity with respect to this claim. They cite to People 3 v.
Cited 0 timesUnknown(PC) Coleman v. California Department of Corrections
District Court, E.D. California · Sep 9, 2024
Qualified 4 immunity protects government officials from liability for civil damages where a reasonable 5 person would not have known their conduct violated a clearly established right. … itself, that qualified immunity applies.”)
Cited 0 timesUnknownDistrict Court, E.D. California · Feb 15, 2022
the “qualified immunity” doctrine. … “Government officials enjoy 13 qualified immunity from civil damages unless their conduct violates ‘clearly established statutory 14 or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.’”
Cited 0 timesUnknownDistrict Court, E.D. California · Mar 21, 2024
Defendant is also entitled to qualified immunity 1 because he did not violate Plaintiff’s constitutional rights and Plaintiff has no clearly established 2 right to choose particular medical procedures. … Qualified Immunity 5 Defendant also asserts that the Court should grant summary judgment on the basis of 6 qualified immunity.
Cited 0 timesUnknownBrave and Free Santa Cruz v. Aragon
District Court, E.D. California · Jan 27, 2025
Cal.); (2) defendant CDE and all successors to notify, within 15 days, local education 13 authorities that California children who qualify for IEPs under the Act must be educated without 14 regard to their immunization … have qualified for 19 IEPs that (a) those children must be educated without regard to immunization status, and (b) any 20 proposed changes to IEP services based on immunization status must be preceded by prior written
Cited 0 timesUnknown
Ask Donna