Case law

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

Phillips v. City of Fairfield

406 F. Supp. 2d 1101 · District Court, E.D. California · Dec 21, 2005

Qualified Immunity Defendants argue that, even if the officers made a mistake regarding probable cause or the amount of force required, they are immune from suit based upon the doctrine of qualified immunity. … A law officer can establish qualified immunity by demonstrating (1) that the law governing the officer’s conduct was not clearly established at the time of the challenged actions, or (2) that under the clearly established

A.T. v. Dry Creek Joint Elementary Sch. Dist.

316 F. Supp. 3d 1204 · District Court, E.D. California · Jun 19, 2018

Qualified Immunity Lastly, Defendants assert they are entitled to qualified immunity. … The Court therefore must assess whether the right was clearly established. This is "a two-part inquiry: (1) Was the law governing the state official's conduct clearly established?

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.

(PC) Kindred v. Allenby

District Court, E.D. California · Jun 15, 2021

(Id. at 335.) 11 “The doctrine of qualified immunity protects government officials 'from liability for civil 12 damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … The Jessop court found that the defendants were entitled to 12 qualified immunity because the plaintiffs failed to show that it was clearly established that this 13 conduct violated the Fourth Amendment in 2013

Reed v. City of Modesto

122 F. Supp. 3d 967 · District Court, E.D. California · Aug 7, 2015

Qualified Immunity Standard “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 a reasonable … “[T]he Supreme Court set forth a two-part test for qualified immunity in excessive force cases.

Plymale v. Dyer

837 F. Supp. 2d 1077 · District Court, E.D. California · Nov 16, 2011

If the answer is no, the officer is entitled to qualified immunity. If the answer is yes, the court must proceed to the next question: whether the right was clearly established at the time the officer acted. … As discussed above, Officer Plymale fails to establish violation of a clearly established statutory or constitutional right. Qualified immunity further supports summary judgment for defendants.

Brown v. Rafferty

District Court, E.D. California · Sep 30, 2022

Qualified Immunity 2 Defendant asserts she is entitled to qualified immunity because she did not violate clearly 3 established law. (ECF No. 26-1 at 26.) … Plaintiff argues qualified immunity does not apply.

(PS) Lull v. County of Placer

District Court, E.D. California · Apr 13, 2020

Witt, 781 F.2d 7 155, 157 (9th Cir. 1985) (listing nonexclusive factors relevant to determining whether absolute or 8 qualified immunity applies to officers whose “functions bear a close association to the judicial 9 … Penman, 103 F.3d 868, 874 (9th 26 Cir. 1996) (to establish a violation of substantive due process, “a plaintiff is ordinarily required to prove that a challenged government action was ‘clearly arbitrary and unreasonable

Via v. City of Fairfield

833 F. Supp. 2d 1189 · District Court, E.D. California · Jun 13, 2011

In § 1983 actions, “qualified immunity protects government officials ‘from *1195 liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable … “The test for qualified immunity is: (1) identification of the specific right being violated; (2) determination of whether the right was so clearly established as to alert a reasonable officer to its constitutional parameters

Vierria v. California Highway Patrol

644 F. Supp. 2d 1219 · District Court, E.D. California · Jun 23, 2009

Qualified Immunity Devereux argues he is entitled to qualified immunity because he was acting, at all relevant times, as a government official. … by the WCA, and (4) Devereux is entitled to absolute or qualified immunity.

S.T. v. City of Ceres

327 F. Supp. 3d 1261 · District Court, E.D. California · Aug 30, 2018

"The threshold inquiry in a qualified immunity analysis is whether the plaintiff's allegations, if true, establish a constitutional violation." Wilkins v. … Here, "[i]f jury accepts plaintiff's version of the facts to be true, the officers would not be entitled to qualified immunity 'because it is a violation of clearly established law for an officer to use deadly force against

Committee to Protect our Agricultural Water v. Occidental Oil & Gas Corp.

235 F. Supp. 3d 1132 · District Court, E.D. California · Jan 20, 2017

Government officials enjoy qualified immunity from civil damages unless their conduct violates “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person, would have known'.” Jeffers v. … or constitutional right; and (ii) whether the right at issue was “clearly established.”

Jones v. City of Modesto

408 F. Supp. 2d 935 · District Court, E.D. California · Dec 16, 2005

A public official is entitled to qualified immunity if the law governing the official’s conduct was not clearly established, or if under clearly established law he could have reasonably *959 believed that his conduct was … “While the right to due process is ‘clearly established’ by the Due Process Clause, this level of generality was *960 not intended to satisfy the qualified immunity standard.” Id.

Fitzgerald v. El Dorado County

94 F. Supp. 3d 1155 · District Court, E.D. California · Mar 4, 2015

Qualified Immunity Defendants D’Agostini and Williams also seek summary judgment with respect to Plaintiffs First Amendment claim on the basis that they are entitled to qualified immunity. ECF 31-1 at 21. … was clearly established.

San Joaquin Deputy Sheriffs' Ass'n v. County of San Joaquin

898 F. Supp. 2d 1177 · District Court, E.D. California · Sep 24, 2012

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 a reasonable person … Id. at 201, 121 S.Ct. 2151 (citations omitted). 6 Qualified immunity is applicable unless the official’s conduct violated a clearly established constitutional right. Pearson v.

Hansen v. Schubert

459 F. Supp. 2d 973 · District Court, E.D. California · Nov 20, 2006

A law officer can establish qualified immunity by demonstrating (1) that the law governing the officer’s conduct was not clearly established at the time of the challenged actions, or (2) that under the clearly established … Defendants contend that they are entitled to qualified immunity because the law applicable to these circumstances was not clearly established at the time of the search.

Kaur v. City of Lodi

263 F. Supp. 3d 947 · District Court, E.D. California · Jun 30, 2017

However, “[a]n official sued under § 1983 is entitled to qualified immunity unless it is shown that the official violated a statutory or constitutional right that was clearly established at the time of the challenged conduct … Second, does the limited guidance provided by Supreme Court and Ninth Circuit precedent regarding the^precise contours of this claim prevent it from being “clearly established” for purposes of qualified immunity?

Willis v. Mullins

809 F. Supp. 2d 1227 · District Court, E.D. California · Aug 16, 2011

Qualified immunity on this issue can not be determined at this time. 2. … For qualified immunity analysis, “the objective (albeit fact-specific) question [is] whether a reasonable officer could have believed [the police defendant’s] warrantless search to be lawful, in light of clearly established

Warkentine v. Soria

152 F. Supp. 3d 1269 · District Court, E.D. California · Jan 21, 2016

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 … “For the second step in the qualified immunity analysis — whether the constitutional right was clearly established at the time of the .conduct — the critical question is whether the contours of the right were ‘sufficiently