Case law
Opinions from 1658 to today.
2,024 results
0.64s
Abiding Place Ministries v. Newsom
District Court, S.D. California · Feb 14, 2023
Qualified Immunity 10 The County Defendants argue Plaintiff has not pleaded a violation of any clearly 11 established right, therefore, the FAC should be dismissed under … Instead, Plaintiff 7 contends qualified immunity does not apply “because the right to assemble for Church is a 8 clearly established right” and “it has been clearly established that no government in this 9 nation can
Cited 0 timesUnknown230 F. Supp. 167 · District Court, S.D. California · Jun 1, 1964
. * * In justice to the parties and to the Court, the complaint should be one which clearly states the allegations which plaintiff means it should state, and these allegations should be *170 understood by the parties and … Plaintiff further alleges that defendant Wingard was at all times mentioned in the complaint the duly elected, appointed, qualified and acting Chief of Police of the City of Oceanside; defendant Michaels was at all times
Questioned by Chamberlain v. Brown, 223 Tenn. 25 (1969)Cited 43 timesPublishedDistrict Court, S.D. California · Jun 1, 2026
not violate clearly 4 established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have 5 known.” … “To determine 6 whether qualified immunity applies, we ask whether (1) the plaintiff has plausibly alleged 7 a violation of a constitutional right, and (2) the constitutional right was ‘clearly established’ 8 at the
Cited 0 timesUnknownDistrict Court, S.D. California · Aug 19, 2024
Qualified Immunity 12 Additionally, Defendant asserts qualified immunity. See id. … of their conduct was clearly established at the time.’”
Cited 0 timesUnknownBrown v. Sweetwater Union High School District
District Court, S.D. California · Feb 18, 2025
clearly established: 24 It's clearly established in our circuit that public employees are entitled to be free of purposeful workplace harassment on the basis of protected status. … 26 Alternatively, the Trustee Defendants contend they are entitled to qualified 27 immunity.
Cited 0 timesUnknownCornwell v. California Board of Barbering & Cosmetology
962 F. Supp. 1260 · District Court, S.D. California · May 2, 1997
The distinction is “commonplace in sovereign immunity doctrine.” L. … These two issues are so clearly within the legislature’s prerogative that the Court will not entertain challenges to them.
Cited 11 timesPublishedDistrict Court, S.D. California · Mar 29, 2022
Qualified Immunity 5 “Qualified immunity shields federal and state officials from money damages unless 6 a plaintiff pleads facts showing (1) that the official violated … Defendants argue that they are entitled to qualified 19 immunity because “they did not violate any clearly established constitutional right.” (Mot. 20 at 10.)
Cited 0 timesUnknown475 F. Supp. 1 · District Court, S.D. California · May 26, 1977
That court held that no representations by Government agents could waive the immunity granted by the Feres Doctrine. … Once this immunity is established it is certain that the individual defendants are also immune from suit.
Cited 30 timesPublishedMonterroso v. City of San Diego
District Court, S.D. California · Sep 17, 2020
“Qualified immunity shields 6 government actors from civil liability under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 if ‘their conduct does not 7 violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person 8 … immunity has been criticized, justifiably, as protecting “all officers, no matter how egregious their conduct, if the law they broke was not ‘clearly established.’”
Cited 0 timesUnknownDistrict Court, S.D. California · Oct 24, 2025
Qualified Immunity 3 Defendants contend defendant Dominguez is entitled to qualified immunity on all of 4 Plaintiff’s § 1983 claims. ECF No. 8-1 at 30–32. … Second, courts consider “whether that right was clearly 19 established at the time of the incident.” Id.
Cited 0 timesUnknownDistrict Court, S.D. California · Mar 27, 2025
was illegal based on clearly established 20 law, to determine whether the officers are entitled to qualified immunity.7 If it concludes 21 22 … Because the undisputed facts 3 establish that there was no constitutional violation, as required by the first prong of the 4 qualified immunity analysis, the Court need not reach the second “clearly established law”
Cited 0 timesUnknownDistrict Court, S.D. California · Apr 22, 2020
Judge Burkhardt 5 also recommends the Court find that Hodge and Velardi are not entitled to qualified 6 immunity because it was clearly established their alleged actions violated the Eighth 7 Amendment, id. at 33–35 … See Akhtar, 698 F.3d at 1213–14. 18 Because there is a material issue of fact whether Hodge violated a clearly established right, 19 qualified immunity is not appropriate. 20
Cited 0 timesUnknownDistrict Court, S.D. California · Apr 25, 2025
Qualified immunity precludes liability if the officer’s 1 “conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a 2 reasonable person would have known.” Harlow v. … Although qualified 16 immunity is a two-step analysis, the court may analyze just the second step “when no 17 clearly established law shows that the officers’ conduct was unconstitutional.”
Cited 0 timesUnknownDistrict Court, S.D. California · Dec 20, 2024
Immunity 6 “The doctrine of qualified immunity protects government officials ‘from liability for 7 civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established … Immunity 18 “The doctrine of qualified immunity protects government officials ‘from liability for 19 civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established
Cited 0 timesUnknownParker v. SDSU Police Dept (SDSUPD)
District Court, S.D. California · Nov 15, 2022
Additionally, where a 26 Defendant affirmatively asserts qualified immunity as a defense, “[i]t is the plaintiff who 27 ‘bears the burden of showing that the rights allegedly violated were clearly established’” 28 Shafer … The Court’s prior order considered Plaintiff’s argument that he need 5 not identify any clearly established law to rebut Defendants’ assertion of qualified 6 immunity [see ECF No. 32 at 41-43] and found that
Cited 0 timesUnknown319 F. Supp. 558 · District Court, S.D. California · Sep 16, 1970
However, if defendant was entitled to immunity from deportation under section 1251(f) on March 28, 1969, he was non-deportable and, consequently, his deportation on that date would have been unlawful and a gross miscarriage … Section 241(f) must be interpreted in light of the process established by the Immigration and Nationality Act for obtaining information from aliens who seek to qualify for entry into the United States.
Cited 3 timesPublishedDistrict Court, S.D. California · Sep 11, 2020
right that was clearly established 18 at the time of the challenged conduct.” … If not, the officer receives qualified immunity.
Cited 0 timesUnknown141 F. Supp. 3d 1044 · District Court, S.D. California · Oct 8, 2015
Am allegation of illegal activity that is subsequently withdrawn serves more to disprove than to prove the illegal nature of the activity, and such an allegation is certainly insufficient to qualify as notice that would give … Defendant CallFire also argues that it is immune from liability under the Communications Decency Act, 47 U.S.C. § 230 . (Doc. No. 38-1 at 27-29.)
Cited 9 timesPublishedDominguez v. City of Escondido
District Court, S.D. California · Mar 24, 2022
The Reese court concluded that 18 “[a]bsent a showing by [plaintiff] that the right was clearly established at the time,” the 19 defendant officer was “entitled to qualified immunity on the Fourth Amendment … May 15, 2018) (finding 25 defendant officer entitled to qualified immunity where plaintiff failed to cite to any 26 existing precedent that clearly established the illegality of the alleged conduct or failed
Cited 0 timesUnknownSan Diego Branch of National Association For The Advancement of Colored People
District Court, S.D. California · Jun 14, 2022
“Qualified immunity protects 26 government officials from liability for civil damages unless their conduct violates ‘clearly 27 established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have 28 … In cases where the defense of qualified immunity 2 is raised, the plaintiff must show that “(1) the official violated a statutory or constitutional 3 right, and (2) that the right was clearly established at the time of
Cited 0 timesUnknown
Ask Donna