Case law
Opinions from 1658 to today.
6,306 results
1.91s
Murrietta-Golding v. City of Fresno
District Court, E.D. California · Oct 15, 2020
Officers are entitled to qualified immunity under 1 § 1983 unless (1) the officers violate a federal a federal statutory or constitutional right, and (2) the 2 unlawfulness of their conduct was “clearly established at … City of Roseville, 882 10 F.3d 843, 856-57 (9th Cir. 2018) (noting that Ninth Circuit precedent is sufficient to meet the 11 “clearly established” prong of qualified immunity).
Cited 0 timesUnknownDistrict Court, E.D. California · Apr 7, 2023
Alternatively, they argue that Mays is entitled to qualified immunity. Id. at 16 23-25. … violate clearly established statutory or 23 constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.”
Cited 0 timesUnknownDistrict Court, E.D. California · Oct 11, 2024
In the context of deciding whether the 17 defendant officers were entitled to qualified immunity, the Ninth Circuit stated as follows: 18 In an attempt to invoke the doctrine of specific intent, the officers … Moreover, as their argument for qualified immunity is based on the same 18 misstatement of the law, the Court will recommend that the summary
Cited 0 timesUnknownDistrict Court, E.D. California · Jul 12, 2022
qualified immunity. 12 The undersigned agrees there is no clearly established law recognizing a prisoner’s right 13 to a truthful counseling chrono. … Plaintiff cites no 16 authorities to the contrary, and argues only that “the prohibition against retaliatory punishment is 17 clearly established law in the Ninth Circuit for qualified immunity purposes.”
Cited 0 timesUnknownCentral Valley Chrysler-Jeep v. Witherspoon
456 F. Supp. 2d 1160 · District Court, E.D. California · Sep 25, 2006
The court was careful to qualify that the federal government, by merely authorizing the states to act, did not immunize state regulations from conflict preemption scrutiny: “Of course, even when the federal government has … law ‘regulates even-handedly to effectuate a legitimate local public interest, and its effects on interstate commerce are only incidental,’ then the statute must be upheld ‘unless the burden imposed on such commerce is clearly
Cited 7 timesPublishedDistrict Court, E.D. California · Sep 8, 2022
Absolute and Qualified Immunity – Defendant Coronado 2 Additionally, it appears that Defendant Coronado, a social worker, may be entitled to 3 absolute or qualified immunity from suit. … “It has long been 18 established that judges are absolutely immune from liability for acts ‘done in the exercise of their 19 judicial functions.” Miller v.
Cited 0 timesUnknownOrtiz v. County of San Joaquin
District Court, E.D. California · Feb 9, 2022
immunity. … 2) whether that right was “clearly established” at the time of 27 the incident.
Cited 0 timesUnknownDistrict Court, E.D. California · Aug 4, 2025
Qualified Immunity and Punitive Damages 3 State Defendants argue they are entitled to qualified immunity, an argument 4 Plaintiff opposes. … Qualified immunity protects government officials “from liability for civil 5 damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or 6 constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would
Cited 0 timesUnknownDistrict Court, E.D. California · Aug 26, 2026
to qualifying state officials sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. … Gammie, 335 F.3d 889, 895-96 (9th Cir.2003) (explaining that though § 1983 does 8 not include a defense of immunity, “the Supreme Court has recognized that when Congress enacted § 1983, it was aware of a well-established
Cited 0 timesUnknownDistrict Court, E.D. California · May 20, 2022
The determination of qualified immunity requires a two-step test: (1) whether facts 14 alleged, taken in the light most favorable to the injured party, show the defendants’ conduct 15 violated a constitutional right; … and (2) whether the right was clearly established.
Cited 0 timesUnknownDistrict Court, E.D. California · Aug 26, 2026
to qualifying state officials sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. … Gammie, 335 F.3d 889, 895-96 (9th Cir.2003) (explaining that though § 1983 does 8 not include a defense of immunity, “the Supreme Court has recognized that when Congress enacted § 1983, it was aware of a well-established
Cited 0 timesUnknownDistrict Court, E.D. California · Sep 22, 2021
Id. at 6. 19 Alternatively, Defendant argues that he is entitled to qualified immunity. Id. at 6-7. … clearly established statutory or 7 constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.”
Cited 0 timesUnknownOhlendorf v. American Home Mortgage Servicing
279 F.R.D. 575 · District Court, E.D. California · Mar 31, 2010
At the time of the loan, plaintiffs Fair Isaac Corporation (“FICO”) score, which is used to determine the type of loans for which a borrower is qualified, should have classified him as a “prime” borrower, but Alfano classified … Further, the actions of debt collectors under the act are not immunized if plaintiff actually owed money. Rather, the Rosenthal Act prohibits conduct in collecting a debt, whether valid or not.
Cited 16 timesPublishedDistrict Court, E.D. California · Oct 31, 2023
Defendants also argue that they are 16 entitled to qualified immunity. … or constitutional right; and (2) whether 20 the right at issue was clearly established at the time of the incident.
Cited 0 timesUnknownDistrict Court, E.D. California · Sep 7, 2022
Qualified Immunity 16 Finally, defendants argue that they are entitled to qualified immunity because a reasonable 17 officer in defendants’ position would not have known that … “The doctrine of qualified immunity protects government 21 officials from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly 22 established statutory or constitutional rights of which
Cited 0 timesUnknownDistrict Court, E.D. California · Feb 2, 2022
He bears the burdens of establishing the court’s subject matter jurisdiction 14 under the FTCA’s general waiver of immunity, Prescott v. … test is met and that discretionary immunity applies,” Ruffino bears the 6 burden “of coming forth with sufficient evidence to establish there are genuine issues of material 7 fact.”
Cited 0 timesUnknown863 F. Supp. 2d 1001 · District Court, E.D. California · Mar 27, 2012
As the Court stated in its Original Order: A plaintiff bears the burden of establishing “that he has standing for each type of relief sought.” Summers v. … See, e.g., Opposition, 21:20-26 (“Plaintiffs seek contract payments and insurance proceeds that clearly not subject to workers compensation laws.... [Tjhese are not the Plaintiffs’ claims in the amended complaint.”).
Cited 0 timesPublished60 F. Supp. 2d 1030 · District Court, E.D. California · Nov 18, 1998
The License Agreement “established a restaurant at 3556 Coach Lane, Cameron Park, California only.” See Memorandum and Order, filed May 8, 1998. … Ohri may extend beyond a mere breach of contract claim, which is clearly not covered by the act, see American Airlines, Inc. v.
Cited 2 timesPublishedGoodwin v. Social Security Administration
District Court, E.D. California · May 22, 2025
Stahl, 254 F.3d 845 (9th Cir. 2001) (dismissal required of in forma pauperis proceedings which seek monetary relief from immune defendants); Cato v. … disability under the ADA, Plaintiff’s complaint does not clearly allege 10 the remaining elements of either a Title II or Title III ADA claim.
Cited 0 timesUnknownDistrict Court, E.D. California · Mar 9, 2023
immunity. … (ECF No. 75-7 at 46.) 1 qualified immunity protects “government officials ... from liability for civil damages insofar as 2 their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of
Cited 0 timesUnknown
Ask Donna