Case law

Henderson v. Lewis

District Court, N.D. California · Sep 10, 2019

clearly established statutory or 23 constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” … To determine whether a government official is entitled to qualified 25 immunity, courts must consider (1) whether the official’s conduct violated a constitutional right, 26 and (2) whether that right was “clearly established

Williams v. Austen

District Court, N.D. California · Sep 16, 2021

Dkt. 20 at 13-15. 10 The defense of qualified immunity protects government officials “from liability for civil 11 damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory … Courts may consider these two questions in either order, and a favorable determination for 15 the defendant on either establishes qualified immunity.

Estate of Garcia Toribio v. City of Santa Rosa

381 F. Supp. 3d 1179 · District Court, N.D. California · Apr 4, 2019

The qualified immunity doctrine shields a government official performing discretionary functions from liability for civil damages if the officer's conduct does not violate a "clearly established statutory or constitutional … See Sheehan , 135 S.Ct. at 1776 (questioning without deciding whether "a controlling circuit precedent could constitute clearly established federal law in these circumstances" for purposes of Section 1983 qualified immunity

Estate of Lopez v. Gelhaus

149 F. Supp. 3d 1154 · District Court, N.D. California · Jan 20, 2016

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 … Based on the review of the cases above, the court finds *1165 that it was clearly established, and thus, qualified immunity does not shield Gelhaus from liability.

Coming Up, Inc. v. City & County of San Francisco

857 F. Supp. 711 · District Court, N.D. California · Jun 21, 1994

First, plaintiffs urge the Court *714 to only consider the defense of qualified immunity with reference to “clearly established law.” Harlow v. … Thus the availability of qualified immunity depends upon the “ ‘objective legal reasonableness’ of the action ... in light of the legal rules that were ‘clearly established’ at the time it was taken.”

Payne v. County of Humboldt

655 F. Supp. 1341 · District Court, N.D. California · Mar 18, 1987

In other words, defendants who act pursuant to their official duties may still be liable under section 1983 if they act unreasonably or in violation of clearly established laws. … To deny him qualified immunity protection unless he goes further and demonstrates that his actions were above the benchmark of legal good faith, would make the concept of qualified immunity a meaningless embellishment.

Sandoval v. County of Sonoma

72 F. Supp. 3d 997 · District Court, N.D. California · Oct 29, 2014

“[C]ourts may grant qualified immunity on the ground that a purported right was not ‘clearly established’ by prior case law....” Reichle v. Howards, — U.S. —, 132 S.Ct. 2088, 2093 , 182 L.Ed.2d 985 (2012). … A Court may grant “qualified immunity on the ground that a purported right was not ‘clearly established’ by prior case law....” Reichle v.

Amezquita v. Garcia-Cortez

District Court, N.D. California · Jul 3, 2024

No. 32 at 26-27. 12 The defense of qualified immunity protects “government officials . . . from liability 13 for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or 14 … U.S. at 194); Henry A., 678 F.3d at 1000 (qualified immunity analysis 11 requiring (1) determining the contours of the clearly established right at the time of the 12 challenged conduct and (2) examining whether a

J.P. v. County of Alameda

District Court, N.D. California · Nov 19, 2021

See Shafer, 868 F.3d at 1117 (holding that 2 qualified immunity applies if no clearly established law exists on the issue); see also White v. Pauly, 137 S. … City of Santa Maria, 915 F.3d 12 592, 603 (9th Cir. 2019) (“[O]ur qualified immunity determination with respect to Officer Brice rests 13 solely on the ‘clearly established’ law prong; we do not reach the question of whether

McKay v. City of Hayward

949 F. Supp. 2d 971 · District Court, N.D. California · Jun 11, 2013

In the absence of clearly established law, Officers Cox, Purnell, and Miller are entitled to qualified immunity from plaintiffs’ § 1983 claim. … Parks, 383 F.3d 1058, 1071 (9th Cir.2004) (denying qualified immunity to officers who failed to intervene where law clearly established use of force was excessive).

Buckheit v. Dennis

713 F. Supp. 2d 910 · District Court, N.D. California · May 18, 2010

Standard Governing Qualified Immunity Under the doctrine of qualified immunity, even if a constitutional violation occurred, governmental officials are immune if their conduct “does not violate clearly established statutory … Where a plaintiff asserts a Fourth Amendment violation based on the absence of probable cause, the relevant inquiry with respect to the “clearly established” prong of the qualified immunity analysis is “whether a ‘reasonable

Willson v. Cagle

711 F. Supp. 1521 · District Court, N.D. California · Sep 22, 1988

clearly established constitutional rights. … However, the Harlow opinion also clearly states that qualified immunity is available only to "government officials performing discretionary functions." Id.

NAACP of San Jose/ Silicon Valley v. City Of San Jose

District Court, N.D. California · Aug 3, 2023

Emmons, 139 S.Ct. 500, 27 503 (2019). 1 district framed the relevant qualified immunity question as “whether it was clearly 2 established that an officer … immunity on the ground that the law is not clearly 16 established every time a novel method is used to inflict injury.”

Franklin v. Fox

107 F. Supp. 2d 1154 · District Court, N.D. California · Jul 17, 2000

THE QUALIFIED IMMUNITY MOTIONS Under the doctrine of qualified immunity, government officials performing discretionary functions are shielded from liability for civil damages if “their conduct does not violate clearly established … “Determining whether a public official is entitled to qualified immunity ‘requires a two-part inquiry: (1) Was the law governing the state official’s conduct clearly established?

Nicole M. Ex Rel. Jacqueline M. v. Martinez Unified School District

964 F. Supp. 1369 · District Court, N.D. California · Apr 15, 1997

Analysis of Qualified Immunity Defense 1. Whether the Law at the Time of Guzman’s Alleged Acts and Omissions Was Clearly Established a. … The investigator asserted a qualified immunity defense, maintaining that the law did not clearly establish that his actions violated Eastwood’s right to privacy.

Williams v. County of Alameda

26 F. Supp. 3d 925 · District Court, N.D. California · Feb 10, 2014

An officer will receive qualified immunity if a reasonable officer could have believed the action to be lawful, in 'light of clearly established law and the information the officer possessed. Id. … Even an officer who reasonably, but mistakenly, believed that his conduct did not violate a clearly established constitutional right will receive qualified immunity. See Saucier, 533 U.S. at 205-206, 121 S.Ct. 2151 .

Meas v. City and County of San Francisco

681 F. Supp. 2d 1128 · District Court, N.D. California · Feb 9, 2010

A court considering a claim of qualified immunity must determine whether the plaintiff has alleged the deprivation of an actual constitutional right and whether such right was clearly established such that it would be clear … Here, defendants argue that the officers are entitled to qualified immunity as to the false arrest and malicious prosecution claims because none of their actions violated clearly established law.

Richardson v. City of Antioch

722 F. Supp. 2d 1133 · District Court, N.D. California · Jul 13, 2010

The doctrine of qualified immunity protects government officials “from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate any clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable … Based on clearly established precedent, the Court also finds that Defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity for the arrest of KC. See Saucier, 533 U.S. at 201, 121 S.Ct. 2151 . 2.

Schulthies v. National Passenger Rr Corp.

650 F. Supp. 2d 994 · District Court, N.D. California · Aug 17, 2009

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 … A court considering a claim of qualified immunity must determine whether the plaintiff has alleged the deprivation of an actual constitutional right and whether such right was clearly established such that it would be clear

Moodian v. County of Alameda Social Services Agency

206 F. Supp. 2d 1030 · District Court, N.D. California · Jun 3, 2002

Alternatively, defendants contend that even if plaintiffs’ constitutional rights were violated, those rights were not clearly established at the time of the removal and therefore Black is entitled to qualified immunity. … Qualified immunity protects an official from liability if “(1) the law governing the official’s conduct was clearly established; and (2) under that law, the official objectively could have believed that her conduct was lawful