Case law

Phillips

District Court, S.D. California · Mar 4, 2026

Qualified Immunity 23 Alternatively, Defendants contend that they are entitled to qualified immunity. (See 24 Mem. at 10–15.) … “The doctrine of qualified immunity protects government officials ‘from 25 liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established 26 statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable

Lopez v. Ezell

716 F. Supp. 443 · District Court, S.D. California · May 11, 1989

Clearly, Congress intended that the official record including the application itself and the information contained therein to be confidential. … Congress was clearly concerned about fraud in the applications.

Kohler v. Staples the Office Superstore, LLC

291 F.R.D. 464 · District Court, S.D. California · Feb 12, 2013

In Robbins, the Tenth Circuit applied Twombly and Iqbal to qualified immunity pleadings. 519 F.3d at 1246-48 . … But, the same court also identified the qualified immunity pleadings as part of the complaint, not as an affirmative defense.

San Diego Minutemen v. California Business, Transportation & Housing Agency's Department of Transportation

570 F. Supp. 2d 1229 · District Court, S.D. California · Jun 27, 2008

Defendants Kempton and OrsoDelgado contend that they should be dismissed in their individual capacities because they are entitled to qualified immunity. … The Court concludes that Defendants’ claim of qualified immunity is more appropriately resolved at summary judgment as opposed to at the motion to dismiss stage of these proceedings. See Morley v.

Quechan Tribe of Indians v. Rowe

350 F. Supp. 106 · District Court, S.D. California · Oct 19, 1972

Section 1162(e) provides that Section 1152 does not apply in areas where Section 1162(a) establishes exclusive state jurisdiction. … That holding clearly distinguishes those cases from the one now before the Court.

Greer v. County of San Diego

District Court, S.D. California · Feb 21, 2023

precluded qualified immunity. … If a right is not clearly established, the defendant is entitled to 18 qualified immunity. Lawrence v. U.S., 340 F.3d 952, 956 (9th Cir. 2003).

California Mother Infant Program v. California Department of Corrections

41 F. Supp. 2d 1123 · District Court, S.D. California · Feb 24, 1999

See generally CaLPenal Code § 6258 (allowing the “Director of Corrections [to] contract for the establishment and operation of separate community correctional reentry centers for men and women”). … At the hearing, the Department clearly stated that it only asserted an Eleventh Amendment defense against the section 1981 claim.

Peruta v. County of San Diego

758 F. Supp. 2d 1106 · District Court, S.D. California · Dec 10, 2010

Reid, 1 Ala. 612, 616-17 (1840) (observing that a regulation that amounts to a total ban would be “clearly unconstitutional”). … for relief under the Privileges and Immunities Clause of Article IV.

Botts v. Sheppard

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

claim based on qualified 10 immunity. … (Id.) 13 “Qualified immunity attaches when an official’s conduct does not violate clearly 14 established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have 15 known.” Kisela v.

Rhinehart v. Montgomery

District Court, S.D. California · Mar 24, 2025

But the Court declines to find, for qualified immunity 14 purposes, a right “clearly established” under the Fourth Amendment is necessarily “clearly 15 established” under the Eighth Amendment. See United States v. … established for purposes of qualified immunity.

Ding

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

Counts One, Two, and Three – Qualified Immunity 19 “The doctrine of qualified immunity protects government officials from liability for 20 civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly … invoke 8 qualified immunity.

Levanti v. Tippen

585 F. Supp. 499 · District Court, S.D. California · May 7, 1984

IMMUNITY. … This Court can discern no reason for not recognizing an identical immunity for the official act of establishing rules governing bar admissions as well as discipline.

Alexander v. Diaz

District Court, S.D. California · Apr 11, 2024

The Ninth Circuit did not address the issue of 23 qualified immunity. … second, whether the officer's conduct violated “clearly 20 established law.”

Gen-Probe, Inc. v. Amoco Corp., Inc.

926 F. Supp. 948 · District Court, S.D. California · Apr 24, 1996

These facts, if proven, could establish inducement. The inducement counts therefore may not be dismissed. C. CNS’ Motion to Dismiss 1. … The plaintiffs shotgun approach is clearly deficient to serve either of these purposes. The complaint fails to provide fair notice of what the plaintiff's claims are.

Connolly Data Systems, Inc. v. Victor Technologies, Inc.

114 F.R.D. 89 · District Court, S.D. California · Feb 17, 1987

The record does not establish that he was the only person who had knowledge of these matters. … United States, 449 U.S. 383, 400 , 101 S.Ct. 677, 688 , 66 L.Ed.2d 584, 598 (1981) (noting but not deciding whether immunity from disclosure is absolute or qualified). The Supreme Court in Hickman v.

Morn

District Court, S.D. California · Mar 30, 2026

was ‘clearly established’ at the time of the violative conduct.” … Apr. 8, 2025) (at the summary judgment stage, defendants are “only entitled to 14 qualified immunity as a matter of law if, taking the facts in the light most favorable to 15 [Plaintiff], they violated no clearly established

Hermanson v. Hunter

794 F. Supp. 2d 1097 · District Court, S.D. California · Jul 23, 2008

Sovereign Immunity & The Legal Requirements of 18 U.S.C. § 3523 “[T]he United States, as sovereign, ‘is immune from suit save as it consents to be sued.’ ” Lehman v. … See Forester, 500 F.3d at 925 fn. 5, 927 (both prerequisites to filing suit and issues of sovereign immunity can be said to be jurisdictional). 1 The Court concludes that Plaintiff has not met her burden to establish that

Young v. County of San Diego

District Court, S.D. California · Nov 29, 2021

al-Kidd, 563 U.S. at 735; see Shooter v. 23 Arizona, 4 F.4th 955, 961 (9th Cir. 2021) (“We have discretion to address the clearly 24 established prong of the qualified immunity test first.” … Thus, the Court’s analysis of the 27 Deputy Defendants’ assertion of qualified immunity will begin with the “clearly 28 established” prong. 1 “A government

Harmon v. San Diego County

477 F. Supp. 1084 · District Court, S.D. California · Sep 13, 1979

Stadel believed that the Consent Decree required him to appoint a qualified female instead of a better-qualified male. … Moreover, Title VII itself recognizes only a narrow immunity for good faith, an immunity that does not apply here. See Civil Rights Act § 713(b), 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-12(b) (1976).

Ali v. Grounds

236 F. Supp. 3d 1241 · District Court, S.D. California · Feb 22, 2017

Ali’s argument is unpersuasive on the merits, but also fails for a more fundamental reason — it is not based on clearly established federal law. … Reinhardt, The Demise of Habeas Corpus and the Rise of Qualified Immunity: The Court’s Ever Increasing Limitations on the Development and Enforcement of Constitutional Rights and Some Particularly Unfortunate Consequences