Case law

Smith v. Levine Leichtman Capital Partners, Inc.

723 F. Supp. 2d 1205 · District Court, N.D. California · Jun 29, 2010

With respect to NCG’s third argument, the Ninth Circuit has clearly held that qualified immunity is not available to private entities. … NCG has not provided any authority demonstrating that qualified immunity is available under California law for state-law claims.

Barajas v. City of Rohnert Park

159 F. Supp. 3d 1016 · District Court, N.D. California · Feb 5, 2016

Qualified Immunity “Qualified immunity shields federal and state officials from money damages” unless a plaintiff demonstrates “(1) that the official violated a,... constitutional right, and (2) that the right was ‘clearly … Nonetheless, the Court grants the Defendant officers qualified immunity on the narrow ground that it was not clearly established that the Randolph rule applies in the context of probation searches.

Butler v. Woods

District Court, N.D. California · Nov 28, 2022

Qualified Immunity. Finally, the defendants argue that Bellas and Woods are protected by qualified immunity. … Epps, 659 F.3d 440, 447 (Sth Cir. 2011) (analyzing, as part of qualified immunity, whether the defendant’s “failure to promulgate [a] policy was objectively unreasonable in light of clearly established law”).

Estate of Charles Chivrell v. City of Arcata

District Court, N.D. California · Sep 6, 2024

To determine if an officer is entitled to qualified immunity, the 10 Court considers whether (1) the officer’s conduct violated a constitutional right, and (2) that right 11 was clearly established at the time of the … See Perez, 98 F.4th at 928 (contravention of training would not 26 defeat qualified immunity because “the law did not clearly establish, nor did

Bell v. Lee

District Court, N.D. California · Mar 11, 2024

They also argue that Gatmen and Herron are entitled to qualified immunity 16 because they carried Bell at the direction of Lieutenant Krol. … Cnty. of Orange, 364 F.3d 1107, 1112 (9th Cir. 2004) (clearly established right to be free 7 || of excessive force encompasses “well-established” right to be free of overly tight handcuffs) (citing 8 Meredith

Hernandez v. County of Santa Clara

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

was clearly established at the time of the 11 alleged misconduct.” … 6 risk that [detainee] would imminently attempt suicide”). 7 Plaintiff argues that qualified immunity does not apply in this case because “custodial 8 safety” is a “clearly established right,”

Rutledge v. Hatton

District Court, N.D. California · Oct 2, 2020

To determine whether an 15 officer is entitled to qualified immunity, the Court must consider whether (1) the officer’s conduct 16 violated a constitutional right, and (2) that right was clearly established at the time … Appx. 415, 418 (9th Cir. 27 2002) (denying qualified immunity because it is clearly established that refusing requests from a 1 indifference to medical needs).

Matthews v. Foss

District Court, N.D. California · Aug 6, 2024

Saucier, 25 533 U.S. at 202. 26 A court considering a claim of qualified immunity must determine whether the 1 was clearly established such that it would … , 533 U.S. at 194); Henry A., 678 F.3d at 1000 (qualified immunity analysis 6 requiring (1) determining the contours of the clearly established right at the time of the 7 challenged conduct and (2) examining whether

Lees v. CDCR/SVSP-LVN Singsong

District Court, N.D. California · Sep 29, 2022

To determine whether an 1 violated a constitutional right, and (2) that right was clearly established at the time of the incident. 2 Pearson, 555 U.S. at 232. … City of Anaheim, 11 343 F.3d 1052, 1061 (9th Cir. 2003) (denying qualified immunity because it is clearly established 12 that crushing an arrestee on ground despite his repeated cries for air and despite fact that his

Silverman v. Lane

District Court, N.D. California · Jun 30, 2020

No. 75 at 17. 25 The defense of qualified immunity protects “government officials . . . from liability 26 for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established … Furthermore, Ninth Circuit 15 precedent regarding the use of tasers indicates that qualified immunity protects officers 16 who were reasonably mistaken in their use based on the lack of a clearly established right.

Collins v. County of Alameda

District Court, N.D. California · May 3, 2021

Abbey, 263 F.3d 1070, 1074-75 8 (9th Cir. 2001) (in discussing qualified immunity, noting that “there is a clearly established 9 constitutional due process right not to be subjected to criminal charges on the basis … (if this was a prosecutorial decision) or at least qualified immunity (e.g., if she did not know the 15 full circumstances related to the second photo lineup).

Grigorescu v. Board of Trustees of the San Mateo County Community College District

District Court, N.D. California · May 24, 2024

“When the defendants are public officials asserting a qualified immunity 18 defense and the appealed issue is whether a given set of facts establishes that defendants violated 19 clearly established law,” the order … The 9 Ninth Circuit denied the principal qualified immunity, stating that the plaintiff’s “right to express 10 political views, even as a public school teacher, is clearly established.

Reynolds v. California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation

District Court, N.D. California · Nov 12, 2019

clearly established statutory or constitutional rights 1 The doctrine of qualified immunity attempts to balance two important and sometimes competing 2 interests: “the need to hold public officials accountable when … 14 spores—was not clearly established at the time”); Horton v.

Oxley v. Contra Costa County Sheriff Department

District Court, N.D. California · Jan 31, 2025

Hughes, 584 U.S. 100, 105 16 (2018) (finding officer entitled to qualified immunity against an excessive force claim 17 because there was no clearly established law by which any competent officer would have 18 known … Defendants assert that 17 Defendant Jones is entitled to qualified immunity based on the undisputed facts and the 18 absence of any controlling authority clearly establishing that his conduct was unlawful. 19 Id

Sims v. Diaz

District Court, N.D. California · Mar 23, 2021

was “clearly established” at the time of the alleged misconduct. … 27 Fever spores—was not clearly established at the time”); Horton v.

Anderson v. California Department of Correction

District Court, N.D. California · Mar 14, 2022

Qualified Immunity 21 Defendant Ferguson argues that he is entitled to qualified immunity because he did not 22 violate Plaintiff’s Eight Amendment rights and because it … To determine whether an 11 officer is entitled to qualified immunity, the Court must consider whether (1) the officer’s conduct 12 violated a constitutional right, and (2) that right was clearly established at the time

Pachote v. County of Contra Costa

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

Qualified Immunity. 20 Nelson and Thomas also contend that they are entitled to qualified immunity on Pachote’s 21 Section 1983 claims. … The doctrine of “qualified immunity shields individual officers from 22 liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct did not violate clearly established constitutional 23 rights of which a reasonable person

Harrison v. Kernan

District Court, N.D. California · Sep 21, 2021

Ct. 26 831 (Jan. 23, 2017) (qualified immunity looks at whether the right was clearly established when the defendant acted). … See e.g., S.B., 864 F.3d at 1015 (qualified 7 immunity looks at whether the right was clearly established when the defendant acted).

Torres v. Kernan

District Court, N.D. California · Apr 13, 2020

A court considering a claim of 8 qualified immunity must determine whether the plaintiff has alleged the deprivation of an actual 9 constitutional right and whether such right was clearly established, such that it would … Even if the 17 allegations of the complaint are sufficient to state a claim for violation of § 5301, defendants are 18 entitled to qualified immunity because of the lack of clearly established law. 19 In Nelson

Velasquez v. Senko

643 F. Supp. 1172 · District Court, N.D. California · Mar 31, 1986

If the law was clearly established, the immunity defense ordinarily should fail, since a reasonably competent public official should know the law governing his conduct. … The Court explained: Unless the plaintiffs allegations state a claim of violation of clearly established law, a defendant pleading qualified immunity is entitled to dismissal before the commencement of discovery.