Case law

(PC) Gould v. California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation

District Court, N.D. California · Feb 3, 2020

Id. at 236. 14 With respect to the second prong of the qualified immunity analysis, the Supreme Court 15 has recently held that “[a]n officer cannot be said to have violated a clearly established right unless … .; see, e.g., Pearson, 555 5 U.S. at 243-45 (concluding that officers were entitled to qualified immunity because their conduct 6 was not clearly established as unconstitutional as the “consent-once-removed” doctrine

Mooring v. San Francisco Sheriff's Department

289 F. Supp. 2d 1110 · District Court, N.D. California · Oct 31, 2003

Qualified Immunity 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 … But there was no clearly established right for an inmate to choose his cellmates.

Standridge v. City of Seaside

545 F. Supp. 1195 · District Court, N.D. California · Aug 26, 1982

Until recently, the qualified immunity defense required the establishment of both objective and subjective good faith. Wood v. Strickland, 420 U.S. 308, 320 , 95 S.Ct. 992 , 43 L.Ed.2d 214 (1975). … It is now the rule that “... government officials performing discretionary functions generally are shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional

Frary v. County of Marin

81 F. Supp. 3d 811 · District Court, N.D. California · Feb 25, 2015

“The doctrine 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 person … As it is “clearly established that officers [can] not intentionally deny or delay access to medical care,” Clement, 298 F.3d at 906 , Nurse Fetterly is not presently entitled to qualified immunity on this claim.

Adams v. Committee on Judicial Conduct & Disability

165 F. Supp. 3d 911 · District Court, N.D. California · Feb 25, 2016

Thus, Plaintiffs bear the burden of establishing that a waiver of immunity exists. See Levin v. … The Court does not find the relative burdens here so clearly established as to foreclose any further consideration of the merits of the ultra vires exception. .

Stevenson v. Jones

254 F. Supp. 3d 1080 · District Court, N.D. California · May 30, 2017

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 … To determine whether a government official is entitled to qualified immunity, courts must consider (1) whether the official’s conduct violated a constitutional right, and (2) whether that right was “clearly established” at

Padilla v. Yoo

633 F. Supp. 2d 1005 · District Court, N.D. California · Jun 18, 2009

Qualified Immunity. 1. Legal Standard for a Finding of Qualified Immunity. Yoo also argues that he is entitled to qualified immunity on all claims. … To defeat *1037 qualified immunity, “the right allegedly violated must be defined at the appropriate level of specificity before a court can determine if it was clearly established.” Wilson v.

Moore v. City of Oakland

242 F. Supp. 3d 891 · District Court, N.D. California · Mar 16, 2017

Because Plaintiff cannot show that he had a clearly established right to have DNA evidence tested at some earlier point in time, Officer Tirapelli is entitled to qualified immunity on Plaintiffs Section 1983 claim against … Plaintiffs sole argument in opposition to qualified immunity is a non-starter: he contends that it is “clearly established well before- 2012 that a party is not a ‘driver’ of a vehicle unless they are driving the vehicle”

Burns v. City of Redwood City

737 F. Supp. 2d 1047 · District Court, N.D. California · Aug 25, 2010

Resolution of the motion involves two questions: whether the force used was excessive, and, if so, whether the three *1058 police officers are nevertheless entitled to qualified immunity either because the law was not clearly … Qualified Immunity The doctrine 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

Ward v. City of San Jose

737 F. Supp. 1502 · District Court, N.D. California · Jan 25, 1990

Qualified Immunity Defendants also argue that judgment should be entered in their favor because they are entitled to qualified immunity as a matter of law. … to qualified immunity.

Lawman v. City & County of San Francisco

159 F. Supp. 3d 1130 · District Court, N.D. California · Feb 5, 2016

Qualified Immunity Defendants also move for summary judgment on Lawman’s wrongful arrest claim on the grounds that they are entitled to qualified immunity. … The doctrine 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 person

Kirk v. Hesselroth

707 F. Supp. 1149 · District Court, N.D. California · Jan 26, 1989

rules that were ‘clearly established’ at the time it was taken.” … rules that were “clearly established’ at the time it was taken.”

Mendia v. Garcia

165 F. Supp. 3d 861 · District Court, N.D. California · Feb 26, 2016

Qualified Immunity Having established the availability of Bivens , the Court considers Defendants’ argument that Chang and Garcia are entitled to qualified immunity. Opp’n to Mot. to Am. at 7; Agents MTD at 26-28. … “Qualified immunity shields government officials from civil damages liability unless the official violated a statutory or constitutional right that was clearly established at the time of the challenged conduct.”

Greer v. City of Hayward

229 F. Supp. 3d 1091 · District Court, N.D. California · Jan 17, 2017

“The doctrine 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 person … A jury may agree with Tougas’s view of the evidence, but given the disputed facts and the clearly established law, I cannot find that Tougas is entitled to qualified immunity as a matter of law. C.

Hernandez v. City of San Jose

241 F. Supp. 3d 959 · District Court, N.D. California · Mar 14, 2017

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: (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

Life Savers Concepts Ass'n of Cal. v. Wynar

387 F. Supp. 3d 989 · District Court, N.D. California · May 16, 2019

"To determine whether a government official is entitled to qualified immunity, we ask two questions: whether the official violated a statutory or constitutional right, and whether that right was clearly established at the … "A court should deny a motion to dismiss on the basis of qualified immunity if the complaint 'allege[s] acts to which qualified immunity may not apply.' " Id. (quoting Groten v.

Pickens v. Miller

216 F. Supp. 2d 1011 · District Court, N.D. California · Jul 10, 2002

“If no constitutional right would have been violated were the allegations established, there is no necessity for further inquiries concerning qualified immunity.” Id. at 2156. … However, assuming a violation is established, “the next, sequential step is to ask whether the right was clearly established.

Zupan v. Brown

5 F. Supp. 2d 792 · District Court, N.D. California · Mar 23, 1998

Finally, Defendants assert that they are entitled to qualified immunity as to Mr. Zupan’s claims because their conduct did not violate clearly established law. Mr. … 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 person would have

Rush v. Federal Deposit Ins. Corp.

747 F. Supp. 575 · District Court, N.D. California · Oct 4, 1990

The Supreme Court has directed the federal courts to decide the question of qualified immunity before discovery has been conducted, based on whether the federal official’s conduct violates “clearly established statutory or … First, since plaintiff had no vested right to payment under the severance agreement, he had no “clearly established rights” of which Locke could have known.

Desales v. Woo

860 F. Supp. 1436 · District Court, N.D. California · Aug 25, 1994

Qualified Immunity 8 Defendants maintain that they have qualified immunity for their actions. *1447 Qualified immunity shields officers who reasonably but mistakenly conclude that their conduct is lawful. Hunter v. … Bagley, 988 F.2d 868, 873 (9th Cir.1993). 9 In determining whether qualified immunity exists, the court must decide: whether, in light of clearly established principles governing the conduct in question, the officer objectively