Case law

Cole v. Doe 1 Thru 2 Officers of Emeryville Police Department

387 F. Supp. 2d 1084 · District Court, N.D. California · Sep 1, 2005

Katz, 533 U.S. 194 , 201, 121 S.Ct. 2151 , 150 L.Ed.2d 272 (2001), the Supreme Court established a two-prong analysis for qualified immunity cases. … Cole were to establish purposeful violation of clearly established rights, the officers would not be shielded by qualified immunity. Cf. Crawford-El v.

Eteghaei v. County of Alameda

District Court, N.D. California · Oct 16, 2024

“The doctrine of qualified immunity protects 7 government officials from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate 8 clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable … Qualified immunity is applicable unless the official’s conduct violated a 14 clearly established constitutional right.” Id. 15 The Court finds that qualified immunity is not warranted.

Weinstein v. Mueller

563 F. Supp. 923 · District Court, N.D. California · Dec 15, 1982

For acts occurring before that, he is immune from liability under the doctrine of qualified immunity as set forth in Harlow v. Fitzgerald,-U.S.-, 102 S.Ct. 2727 , 73 L.Ed.2d 396 (1982). … IRS, 640 F.2d 205, 206 (9th Cir.1981), persons carrying out the investigation are entitled to only qualified immunity.

Gonzalez v. Ahmed

67 F. Supp. 3d 1145 · District Court, N.D. California · Sep 9, 2014

A Court considering a claim of qualified immunity must determine: (1) whether the Plaintiff has alleged the deprivation of an actual constitutional right, and (2) whether such right was clearly established such that it would … Chudy on qualified immunity grounds. See Knox v. Sw.

Bull v. City and County of San Francisco

758 F. Supp. 2d 925 · District Court, N.D. California · Dec 16, 2010

Defendant Hennessey took an interlocutory appeal on the qualified immunity issue, and the Ninth Circuit concluded that the City’s “policy requiring strip searches of all arrestees classified for custodial *928 housing in … Moreover, Plaintiffs could even have sought to add representatives as to the section 4030 claim while the matter was on interlocutory appeal as to qualified immunity. See Alice L. v.

Barrilleaux v. Mendocino County

61 F. Supp. 3d 906 · District Court, N.D. California · Jul 25, 2014

“To prove a public program or service violates Title II of the ADA, a plaintiff must show: (1) he is a ‘qualified individual with a disability’; (2) he was either excluded from participation in or denied the benefits of a … Arby’s Huntington Beach, 359 F.Supp.2d 938, 947 (C.D.Cal.2005) (finding plaintiffs allegation that “he would and will return to Arby’s if it is made accessible to persons with disabilities ... clearly satisfies] [plaintiffs

Republic of Philippines Ex Rel. Central Bank of the Philippines v. Marcos

665 F. Supp. 793 · District Court, N.D. California · Feb 11, 1987

The government argues that the FSIA only waives sovereign immunity in certain commercial situations and, thus, is not applicable in the instant case. This is clearly incorrect. … . §§ 1251 , 1351, 1364), which established the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, 23 U.S.T. 3227, T.I.A.S.

Mazor v. Shelton

637 F. Supp. 330 · District Court, N.D. California · Feb 18, 1986

Plaintiff must establish personal responsibility. Duchesne v. Sugarman, 566 F.2d at 830 . … The Supreme Court has recognized two types of immunity defenses: absolute and qualified. Absolute immunity is accorded to government officials who perform judicial or quasi-judicial functions.

Hernandez v. City of Napa

781 F. Supp. 2d 975 · District Court, N.D. California · Mar 21, 2011

The standard for qualified immunity is the “ ‘objective legal reasonableness’ of the action, assessed in light of the legal rules that were ‘clearly established’ at the time it was taken.” Anderson v. … Therefore, these cases alone do not clearly establish a triable issue of fact on qualified immunity.

Schultz v. The Harry S. Truman Scholarship Foundation

District Court, N.D. California · Mar 10, 2023

Although she described Schultz as “well qualified” for the 7 Scholarship and “admitted that some members of the panel posed questions with 8 ‘irreverence,’” she concluded “others presented themselves in both writing … Supp. 2d 10, 20 (D.D.C. 11 2003) (noting “sovereign immunity precludes demands for jury trials on claims against the 12 federal government unless Congress has clearly waived that immunity and expressly 13 granted

Eberhard v. California Highway Patrol

73 F. Supp. 3d 1122 · District Court, N.D. California · Nov 6, 2014

Qualified Immunity As an alternative basis for dismissal of the Section 1983 claim, Lott requests qualified immunity. … Qualified immunity shields federal and state officials from money damages unless a plaintiff pleads facts showing (1) that the official violated a statutory or constitutional right, and (2) that the right was “clearly established

Kyle Zoellner v. Eric Losey

District Court, N.D. California · Mar 1, 2022

10 The doctrine of qualified immunity protects government officials “from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not 11 violate clearly established statutory or … Zoellner instead of simply making a mistake, then he would clearly not be 10 entitled to qualified immunity. See Devereaux v.

Johnson v. Davis

District Court, N.D. California · Sep 8, 2020

Harris, 935 19 F.3d 670, 676 (9th Cir. 2019) (“[T]here are rare cases where an affirmative defense, such as 20 immunity, may be so clear on the face of the complaint that dismissal may qualify as a strike for 21 … The danger faced by the plaintiff must be “clearly related to [the] initial 4 complaint.” Williams v. Paramo, 775 F.3d 1182, 1190 (9th Cir. 2015) (discussing nexus 5 requirement).

Diaz v. Covello

District Court, N.D. California · Aug 23, 2022

Id. at 411. 9 Section 2254(d)(1) restricts the source of clearly established law to the Supreme Court’s 10 jurisprudence. … Ct. 2249 (2007). 19 Such a rule does not violate clearly established federal law. See id.; United States v.

Johnson v. Davis

District Court, N.D. California · Sep 8, 2020

Harris, 935 18 F.3d 670, 676 (9th Cir. 2019) (“[T]here are rare cases where an affirmative defense, such as 19 immunity, may be so clear on the face of the complaint that dismissal may qualify as a strike for 20 … The danger faced by the plaintiff must be “clearly related to [the] initial 2 complaint.” Williams v. Paramo, 775 F.3d 1182, 1190 (9th Cir. 2015) (discussing nexus 3 requirement).

Williams v. Vidmar

367 F. Supp. 2d 1265 · District Court, N.D. California · Apr 28, 2005

and if so, then determine “whether the right was clearly established at the time of the alleged violation.” … Therefore, Defendants’ motion to dismiss based on qualified immunity is denied. F.

Perez v. Binkele

District Court, N.D. California · May 29, 2020

clearly established statutory or constitutional rights 21 of which a reasonable person would have known.” … was “clearly established” at the time of the alleged misconduct.

Alford v. Humboldt County

785 F. Supp. 2d 867 · District Court, N.D. California · Apr 12, 2011

“Since a reasonably competent public official should know the law governing his conduct,” qualified immunity does not apply when the relevant law is clearly established. Harlow v. … “In the absence of binding precedent, a court should look to whatever decisional law is available to ascertain whether the law is clearly established for qualified immunity purposes, including decisions of state courts, other

Schneider v. California Department of Corrections

91 F. Supp. 2d 1316 · District Court, N.D. California · Mar 22, 2000

Qualified Immunity Terhune argues that he is entitled to qualified immunity from damages because it was unclear whether plaintiffs had a constitutional right to have ITA funds placed in interest bearing accounts. … The defense 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

Farrell v. Moomau

85 F. Supp. 125 · District Court, N.D. California · Jul 18, 1949

No power exists in this Court to enlarge the “competitive area”, order the establishment of new positions, or the retention of the plaintiffs in their old positions irrespective of the administrative table of organization … Hague, supra, where the statute is clearly being violated, a plaintiff need not exhaust his administrative remedies, particularly where the plaintiff is faced with immediate discharge rather than merely a demotion in rank