Case law

Mitchell v. Yochum

District Court, N.D. California · Mar 6, 2025

And even if a constitutional right had been violated, Yochum is entitled to 25 qualified immunity because it was not so clearly established that … The defense of qualified immunity protects “government officials . . . from 1 liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established 2 statutory or constitutional rights of which a

Barth v. Firestone Tire and Rubber Co.

673 F. Supp. 1466 · District Court, N.D. California · Sep 1, 1987

The plaintiff also clearly asserts a claim for emotional distress. … However, the statute clearly uses non-exclusive language to limit the term “willful physical assault.”

Bryant v. City of Berkeley

District Court, N.D. California · Sep 12, 2025

If they did not violate clearly established law, Defendants would be entitled to qualified immunity even if the force were unreasonable. Id. at 802. The Court may address these prongs in either order, Damiano v. … Arguing against qualified immunity, Bryant writes that he had a clearly established right “to be free from the lethal force” employed against him on January 2, 2021. Dkt. 103 at 19.

Duncan v. County of Humboldt

District Court, N.D. California · Feb 29, 2024

Qualified Immunity 6 “The doctrine of qualified immunity shields officials from civil liability so long as their 7 conduct ‘does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … Duncan’s constitutional rights to familial association 19 with N.O. are not clearly established and therefore this claim, too, is barred by qualified immunity. 20 d.

Gaines v. Greigore

District Court, N.D. California · Dec 20, 2024

immunity grounds. … 20 The defense of qualified immunity protects “government officials . . . from liability for 21 civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or 22 constitutional rights

Cross v. Board of Supervisors of San Mateo County

326 F. Supp. 634 · District Court, N.D. California · Dec 17, 1968

This section, however, is part of an elaborate system which Congress has established to curb unfair business practices. … The defendants are immune under the immunity doctrine and as such the action against them must be dismissed. See, Barr v. Matteo, 360 U.S. 564 , 79 S.Ct. 1335 , 3 L.Ed.2d 1434 (1959).

Escalera

District Court, N.D. California · Jul 30, 2026

10 was “clearly established in light of the specific context of the case” at the time of the events in 11 question. … Clearly established 13 law must not be defined at a “high level of generality”; in excessive force cases, “police officers are 14 entitled to qualified immunity unless existing precedent ‘squarely governs’ the specific

Meyer

District Court, N.D. California · Dec 30, 2025

was clearly 7 established at the time of the incident. … Id. at 1235 (quotation omitted). 15 Under the second prong of the qualified immunity inquiry, “[a]n officer ‘cannot be said to 16 have violated a clearly established right unless the right

Gonzalez v. City of Alameda

District Court, N.D. California · Oct 16, 2023

While qualified immunity “does not require a case directly on 17 point for a right to be clearly established, existing precedent must have placed the statutory or 18 constitutional question beyond debate,” and factual … Defendants’ opposition brief clearly requests a stay of the entire 7 action pending appeal of the denial of summary judgment on qualified immunity.

Henderson v. Muniz

196 F. Supp. 3d 1092 · District Court, N.D. California · Jul 20, 2016

In response, Plaintiff argues that he is suing Defendants in their individual capacities for violating his First Amendment right to free exercise of religion; that Defendants did not plead qualified immunity; and that Plaintiffs … rights were clearly established.

Sandoval

District Court, N.D. California · May 4, 2026

8 The defense of qualified immunity protects “government officials . . . from liability for 9 civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or 10 constitutional rights … A court considering a 15 claim of qualified immunity must determine whether the plaintiff has alleged the deprivation of an 16 actual constitutional right and whether such right was clearly established such that it

Price

District Court, N.D. California · Dec 12, 2025

Qualified Immunity 21 Because in a footnote to their reply brief, Defendants argued the cases Plaintiffs rely on 22 “heavily impl[y] that the right was not ‘clearly established … Qualified Immunity 24 “[T]here doesn’t need to be a prior case with materially similar facts in order for a right to 25 be clearly established. . . .

Clutchette v. Enomoto

471 F. Supp. 1113 · District Court, N.D. California · Mar 2, 1979

This requirement established, the plaintiffs contend that the present system is defective in several respects. … In addition, some procedure should be established for determining whether the inmate qualifies for such assistance.

Calderon v. City of San Jose

District Court, N.D. California · Jul 26, 2024

In 10 determining whether an officer is entitled to qualified immunity, courts consider “(1) whether 11 there has been a violation of a constitutional right; and (2) whether that right was clearly 12 established … “‘The “clearly established” prong of the qualified immunity analysis is a 6 matter of law’ to be decided by the Court, once factual issues are resolved.” Est. of Stanley v.

Connsero

District Court, N.D. California · Aug 13, 2026

Furthermore, 4 defendants are entitled to qualified immunity. … No. 14 at 17.) 4 Qualified immunity protects “government officials . . . from liability for civil damages 5 insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional 6 rights of which

Steshenko v. Albee

70 F. Supp. 3d 1002 · District Court, N.D. California · Sep 29, 2014

Furthermore, “a plaintiff may plead herself out of court” if she “plead[s] facts which establish that [s]he cannot prevail on h[er] ... claim.” Weisbuch v. … The Court finds no statutory support for this overly narrow interpretation and concludes it is contrary to Congress’s clearly stated intent.

Oller v. Bank of America

342 F. Supp. 21 · District Court, N.D. California · Feb 29, 1972

In order to establish jurisdiction, therefor, the plaintiff must demonstrate that the action in question was “under color of State law” and also that such action deprives the plaintiff of a right, privilege or immunity secured … Reitman , which dealt with racial discrimination in violation of the due process clause, clearly presented a compelling factual situation to which the Civil Rights Acts and their jurisdictional counterparts were designed

Horsley v. Kaiser Foundation Hospitals, Inc.

District Court, N.D. California · Aug 26, 2024

9 conformed with clearly established law. … (citations omitted). 16 Because Plaintiffs have failed to meet their burden of showing a clearly established right, 17 the Court finds that Director Aragón and Governor Newsom are entitled to qualified immunity

La Raza Unida of Southern Alameda County v. Volpe

440 F. Supp. 904 · District Court, N.D. California · Sep 29, 1977

primary sources: first, from the unexplained addition of the words “and laws” following the words “the Constitution” in the 1875 recodification of this section as part of the revised statutes, 8 and second, the presence of qualifying … See, e. g., Cover, Establishing Federal Jurisdiction in Actions Brought to Vindicate Statutory (Federal) Rights When No Violations of Constitutional Rights are Alleged (pt. 1), 2 Clearinghouse Rev. 5 (1969); Herzer, Federal

Hughes v. United States

116 F. Supp. 2d 1145 · District Court, N.D. California · Oct 10, 2000

To establish its entitlement to immunity under the discretionary function exception, the United States must prove both of two things: first, that the challenged act or omission “involves an element of judgment or choice,” … On the other hand, because the law clearly locates the overall burden of proof as to this immunity on the government, courts should resolve against the government doubts about whether the regulatory environment addresses