Case law

Rupe v. Cate

688 F. Supp. 2d 1035 · District Court, E.D. California · Feb 1, 2010

Qualified Immunity Defendants claim that they are entitled to qualified immunity and so Plaintiffs’ constitutional claims should be dismissed. … Because the Complaint does not clearly show that Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity, the Court will not entertain that defense now, but Defendants may renew it on any motion for summary judgment. III.

Huling v. City of Los Banos

869 F. Supp. 2d 1139 · District Court, E.D. California · Apr 19, 2012

. (3) Was the Right Asserted Clearly Established? … clearly established.

Orozco v. County of Yolo

814 F. Supp. 885 · District Court, E.D. California · Feb 24, 1993

Officers are entitled to qualified immunity if their conduct did not violate plaintiffs’ clearly established statutory or constitutional rights or if the officers could reasonably have believed that their conduct was lawful … Alternatively, defendants are entitled to qualified immunity if they prove that a reasonable officer possessing the same information could have believed that the conduct at issue was reasonable in light of the clearly established

Jack v. County of Stanislaus

District Court, E.D. California · Jan 14, 2020

Qualified Immunity 18 Qualified immunity applies when an official's conduct does not violate clearly established 19 statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable … City of Roseville, 882 F.3d 843, 856-57 (9th Cir. 2018) (noting that Ninth Circuit 3 precedent is sufficient to meet the “clearly established” prong of qualified immunity).

Nunes v. Stephens

District Court, E.D. California · May 17, 2021

Defendants appealed the denial of qualified immunity. 1 On December 29, 2020, the Ninth Circuit issued an opinion that reversed this Court’s 2 denial of qualified immunity. See Nunes v. … Raemisch, 864 F.3d 1071, 1078-79 (10th Cir. 2017) (holding that a prior published opinion could be read narrowly or 28 expansively and was too ambiguous to constitute “clearly established law” for purposes of qualified

(PS) Ward v. Upshaw

District Court, E.D. California · Apr 4, 2025

However, this court need not decide that 3 question because it is apparent that the officer defendants are entitled to qualified immunity. 4 There was, at the time of plaintiff’s detention, no “clearly established” First … Luna, 577 U.S. 7, 13 7 (2015) (a right is not clearly established for qualified immunity purposes unless existing 8 precedent “squarely governs” the specific facts at issue).

Fajardo v. City of Bakersfield

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

Immunity 3 “Qualified immunity shields officers from civil liability so long as their conduct does not 4 violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights … S. 223 (2009)(holding 6 that officers were entitled to qualified immunity because their entry did not violate clearly 7

Doubleday v. Ruh

93 Daily Journal DAR 9706 · District Court, E.D. California · Jun 11, 1993

As clearly held by In Re California Public Utilities Com’n, 892 F.2d 778, 781 (9th Cir.1989), the work product immunity cannot be claimed by one who would ordinarily hold the right to assert the immunity 5 unless that person … Assertion of work product is not assertion of a privilege, but rather assertion of a qualified immunity. Admiral Ins v. U.S.D.C. (Ariz.), 881 F.2d 1486, 1494 (9th Cir.1989).

(PC) Abdullah v. Dacuycuy

District Court, E.D. California · Jun 28, 2023

Qualified Immunity 5 Defendants argue they are entitled to qualified immunity because the actions they took 6 were not clearly unconstitutional. (ECF No. 52-1 at 21.) … (Id.) 9 Qualified immunity applies when an official’s conduct does not violate clearly established 10 statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.

Sanchez v. County of Sacramento

District Court, E.D. California · Sep 25, 2023

The Court agrees with Defendants that there is no clearly established law and thus 4 Allbee is entitled to qualified immunity. … However, the “clearly established” standard applies to federal 5 qualified immunity; under California’s Bane Act, the “clearly delineated” standard 6 governs, which is different.

(PC) Taylor v. Commissioner of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation

District Court, E.D. California · Nov 3, 2022

clearly established statutory or 7 constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” … If the law 21 did not put the officer on notice that his conduct would be clearly unlawful, summary judgment 22 based on qualified immunity is appropriate.

(PC) Bowell v. California Department of Corrections

District Court, E.D. California · Jul 30, 2020

Legal Standards 3 Qualified immunity applies when an official’s conduct does not violate clearly established 4 statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable … City of Roseville, 882 F.3d 843, 856-57 16 (9th Cir. 2018) (noting that Ninth Circuit precedent is sufficient to meet the “clearly established” 17 prong of qualified immunity); Hamby v.

J.M. v. Parlier Unified School District

District Court, E.D. California · Nov 10, 2021

Qualified Immunity 14 Qualified immunity applies when an official’s conduct does not violate clearly established 15 statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable … City of Roseville, 882 F.3d 843, 856-57 (9th Cir. 2018) (noting that Ninth Circuit 27 precedent is sufficient to meet the “clearly established” prong of qualified immunity).

(PC) Rico v. Ducart

District Court, E.D. California · Feb 6, 2020

Qualified Immunity 4 Government officials enjoy qualified immunity from civil damages unless their conduct 5 violates clearly established statutory or constitutional rights … immunity where their conduct did not violate clearly 5 | established law.

(PC) Caruso v. Johnson

District Court, E.D. California · Mar 25, 2020

16  1 Legal Standard 2 Qualified immunity applies when an official's conduct does not violate clearly established 3 statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known. … City of Roseville, 882 F.3d 843, 856-57 (9th Cir. 2018) (noting that Ninth Circuit 15 precedent is sufficient to meet the “clearly established” prong of qualified immunity).

(PC) Edwards v. Swarthout

District Court, E.D. California · Apr 25, 2024

Defendant argues, third, he is entitled to qualified 15 immunity because it was not clearly established in 2010 that a modified program based partly … City of Roseville, 9 882 F.3d 843, 856-57 (9th Cir. 2018) (holding that Ninth Circuit precedent is sufficient to meet 10 the “clearly established” prong of qualified immunity).

(PC) Hafiz v. Yates

District Court, E.D. California · Apr 16, 2020

Hines, 914 F.3d at 1230. 1 Ninth Circuit, like the courts below, proceeded “straight to the second prong of the qualified 2 immunity analysis: whether a right to not face a heightened risk was ‘clearly established’ … Katz, 533 U.S. 4 194, 201 (2001) (establishing the two-part inquiry for qualified immunity: (1) whether the 5 alleged facts violate the Constitution, and (2) if so, whether the constitutional right at issue was 6 clearly

(PC) Petillo v. Jasso

District Court, E.D. California · Jan 24, 2023

If the law 18 did not put the officer on notice that his conduct would be clearly unlawful, summary judgment 19 based on qualified immunity is appropriate. … Willden, 26 678 F.3d 991, 1000 (9th Cir. 2012) (qualified immunity analysis requiring (1) determining the 27 contours of the clearly established right at the time of the challenged conduct and (2) examining 1

Jones v. County of Tulare, California

District Court, E.D. California · Jun 20, 2023

In other words, a “public official is entitled to qualified 9 immunity unless (1) ‘the facts . . . show that the official’s conduct violated a constitutional right;’ 10 and (2) the right at issue ‘was clearly established … Granting summary judgment on the ground of qualified immunity 4 is “improper if, under the plaintiff's version of the facts, and in light of the clearly established law, 5 a reasonable officer could not have believed

Santor v. Laster

District Court, E.D. California · Aug 25, 2020

Qualified Immunity 2 Qualified immunity applies when an official’s conduct does not violate clearly established 3 statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known. White v. … City of Roseville, 882 F.3d 843, 856-57 (9th Cir. 2018) (noting that Ninth Circuit precedent is 15 sufficient to meet the “clearly established” prong of qualified immunity).