Case law

Escalante v. San Francisco Community College District, and Board of Trustees

District Court, N.D. California · Sep 30, 2019

State of Alaska, 46 F.3d 1149 (9th Cir. 1995) 2 (table) (affirming grant of qualified immunity when allegations were “too general to establish a 3 violation of a clearly established right such that a reasonable official … stage, a complaint will survive a 12 qualified immunity defense if it “contains even one allegation of a harmful act that would 13 constitute a violation of a clearly established constitutional right.”

Montes v. Miller

District Court, N.D. California · Oct 3, 2025

Qualified Immunity 7 Qualified immunity is an entitlement, provided to government officials in the exercise of 8 their duties, not to stand trial or face the other burdens … To determine whether an officer is entitled to qualified immunity, the Court must 10 consider whether (1) the officer’s conduct violated a constitutional right, and (2) that right was 11 clearly established at the time

Nguyen v. McGrath

323 F. Supp. 2d 1007 · District Court, N.D. California · May 28, 2004

“A state court’s decision is not ‘contrary to ... clearly established Federal law’ simply because the court did not cite ... opinions” of the Supreme Court of the United States. Mitchell v. … A federal habeas court making the “unreasonable application” inquiry should ask whether the state court’s application of clearly established federal law was “objectively unreasonable.”

Steshenko v. Albee

42 F. Supp. 3d 1281 · District Court, N.D. California · May 20, 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. … For example, under the Americans with Disabilities Act, “no qualified individual with a disability shall, by reason of such disability, be excluded from participation in or be denied the benefits of the services, programs

Pierce v. Cnty. of Marin

291 F. Supp. 3d 982 · District Court, N.D. California · Feb 14, 2018

Defendants also move to dismiss the claims against Doyle on the basis of qualified immunity. … The Court finds that resolving whether Doyle is entitled to qualified immunity requires a determination of factual issues, and therefore cannot be resolved at this stage in this litigation.

United States v. Alvarez

190 F. Supp. 3d 885 · District Court, N.D. California · Jun 3, 2016

Millender, 565 U.S. 535 , 132 S.Ct. 1235, 1245 , 182 L.Ed.2d 47 (2012) (holding officers were entitled to qualified immunity in a § 1983 suit, because their reliance on the warbant that was at the heart of the suit was not … The Supreme Court has explained that "the same standard of objective reasonableness” applies to the good faith inquiry under Leon and to qualified immunity analyses.

Banks-Reed v. Bay Area Rapid Transit

District Court, N.D. California · Nov 15, 2019

7 Qualified immunity is a question of law, not of fact. … The qualified immunity doctrine shields a government official 9 performing discretionary functions from liability for civil damages if the officer’s conduct does 10 not violate a “clearly established statutory or constitutional

Ortiz v. City and County of San Francisco

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

The defense of qualified immunity protects 19 “government officials . . . from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate 20 clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which … A court considering a claim of 22 qualified immunity makes a two-pronged inquiry: (1) whether the plaintiff has alleged the 23 deprivation of a constitutional right, and (2) whether such right was clearly established

Sobel Building Development Partners v. Broach (In re Sexton)

166 B.R. 421 · District Court, N.D. California · Apr 19, 1994

Sobel can establish only two of these elements. The Sale Proceeds are clearly an appropriate trust res. The Sextons also clearly gained the Sale Proceeds wrongfully. … as being in good faith, it could1 not qualify as a transferee for value.

Legal Aid Society of Alameda County v. Brennan

381 F. Supp. 125 · District Court, N.D. California · Jun 20, 1974

On the other hand, executive orders clearly carry the force and effect of law if they are issued pursuant to constitutional or statutory authority. … Such a claim clearly falls within the ultra vires exception to the bar of sovereign immunity.

Salkhi v. Dueweke

District Court, N.D. California · Jun 2, 2021

QUALIFIED IMMUNITY 7 Defendants further seek dismissal on the basis of qualified immunity. … If the answer 19 to either question is “no,” then the officer is entitled to qualified immunity.

Burghardt v. Franz

District Court, N.D. California · Jun 16, 2022

a statutory or 16 constitutional right, and (2) that the right was ‘clearly established’ at the time of the challenged 17 conduct.’” … “The clearly established right must be defined with specificity.” City of Escondido v. 24 Emmons, 139 S. Ct. 500, 503 (2019).

Hupp v. City of Walnut Creek

389 F. Supp. 2d 1229 · District Court, N.D. California · Sep 30, 2005

In view of the Court's findings that plaintiff's constitutional rights were not violated, I need not reach Officer Rebello's further argument that he is entitled to qualified immunity because the constitutional rights were … not clearly established. 10 .

Pugh v. Malone

District Court, N.D. California · Dec 7, 2023

Due Process and Qualified Immunity 14 Even if the claims were exhausted, Defendants are entitled to summary judgment on 15 qualified immunity grounds. … A court considering a claim of qualified immunity must determine 16 whether the plaintiff has alleged the deprivation of an actual constitutional right and whether such 17 right was clearly established such that it

Bey v. Malec

District Court, N.D. California · Jun 9, 2020

Further, a qualified immunity analysis for unlawful arrest is dependent upon the “‘objective 23 legal reasonableness’ of the action [under scrutiny], assessed in light of the legal rules that were 24 ‘clearly established … Callahan, 555 U.S. 223, 244 5 (2009) (holding that for a qualified immunity analysis, courts can first address either whether a 6 constitutional right was violated or whether the right was clearly established, receding

Johnson v. City of San Jose

District Court, N.D. California · Mar 16, 2022

Officer Adgar argues that 26 he is entitled to qualified immunity on this claim because he did not violate clearly established 27 law. MTD at 3–8. … Officer Adgar argues that he is entitled to qualified 12 immunity on this claim because he did not violate clearly established First Amendment law. MTD 13 at 12–16.

Tapiacarmona v. San Mateo County Sheriff's Officers

District Court, N.D. California · Jul 2, 2021

“To determine whether a government official is entitled to qualified 15 immunity, we ask two questions: whether the official violated a statutory or constitutional right, 16 and whether that right was clearly established … Whether the Right was Clearly Established at the Time of the Alleged Misconduct 21 As for the second question in the qualified immunity analysis, officers are entitled to 22 qualified immunity where their conduct

Mackay v. City of Salinas

District Court, N.D. California · Jul 18, 2022

“The doctrine of qualified immunity protects government officials from liability for civil 16 damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional 17 rights of which a reasonable … been “clearly established” at the time 21 of defendant’s alleged misconduct.

Baca v. Anderson

District Court, N.D. California · Oct 12, 2022

Second, 2 defendants contend that they are shielded by qualified immunity because “[i]t was not clearly 3 established in May 2020 that a police officer violates the First Amendment by arresting a protestor 4 merely … Defendants are wrong. 22 The doctrine of qualified immunity shields government officials performing discretionary 23 functions from liability for damages “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established

Lim v. Citizens Savings & Loan Ass'n

430 F. Supp. 802 · District Court, N.D. California · Dec 22, 1976

Leavy is clearly not in violation of the Gas-A-Tron standards. 2. … Although plaintiff was qualified to audit the remaining files, Citizens’ decision to retain Lee for this task was clearly supported by legitimate and nondiscriminatory reasons which plaintiff has failed to expose as pretext