Case law

Hamilton v. Moseley

District Court, S.D. California · Mar 21, 2024

second, whether the officer's conduct violated “clearly 17 established law.” … Mohamed is still entitled to qualified 24 immunity as he did not violate any of Plaintiff’s clearly established rights.

Fitzgerald v. Pollard

District Court, S.D. California · Dec 22, 2020

Defendants’ second argument concerns the applicability of the qualified immunity 16 doctrine to Plaintiff’s Fourth Amendment Due Process Claims, with Defendants asserting 17 the claims are barred by their qualified immunity … Qualified Immunity 12 The doctrine of qualified immunity shields government officials “from liability

Johnson v. Nelson

142 F. Supp. 2d 1215 · District Court, S.D. California · Apr 10, 2001

Delgado does not, however, explain which prong of § 2254(d)(1) (“contrary to” or “unreasonable application of’ clearly established federal law) applies to such cases. … Accordingly, we find sufficient evidence in this record to establish the 1982 prior offense as a qualifying prior under the SVP Act. (Lodgment 4 at 4-6.)

J.K.J. v. City of San Diego

District Court, S.D. California · May 18, 2020

Qualified Immunity 9 Officers Durbin and Taub also argue that they are entitled to qualified immunity 10 from the claims against them. … “Qualified immunity shields government actors from civil 11 liability under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 if ‘their conduct does not violate clearly established 12 statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person

Reed v. Paramo

District Court, S.D. California · Jun 18, 2021

“[T]he prohibition against retaliatory punishment is 10 ‘clearly established law’ in the Ninth Circuit, for qualified immunity purposes.” Bruce v. 11 Ylst, 351 F.3d 1283, 1290 (9th Cir. 2003) (quoting Pratt v. … immunity on all 25 claims against him, GRANTING Zendejas qualified immunity on Plaintiff’s cell search 26 and RVR claims, and DENYING Zendejas qualified immunity on Plaintiff’s claim that 27 Zendejas pointed a rifle

Wilson v. Cuevas

District Court, S.D. California · Oct 4, 2019

Similarly, if the Court determines that the right at 14 issue was not clearly established at the time of the defendant’s alleged misconduct, the 15 court may end further inquiries concerning qualified immunity without … “Qualified immunity 1 attaches when an official’s conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or 2 constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.”

K.J. v. Jackson

District Court, S.D. California · Sep 28, 2023

Qualified Immunity 8 Given this finding, the Court must address whether Defendants are entitled to 9 qualified immunity from Plaintiff’s claim. … Qualified immunity shields government 10 officials performing discretionary functions from liability for civil damages unless their 11 conduct violates clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which

Felix v. City of San Diego

District Court, S.D. California · Sep 30, 2021

Qualified Immunity 6 “The doctrine of qualified immunity protects government officials ‘from liability 7 for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly … A public official is entitled to qualified immunity “unless the official’s 14 conduct violated a clearly established constitutional right. [Citation omitted.]” Id. at 232. 15 In Saucier v.

Pyper v. Oceanside Police Department

District Court, S.D. California · Jun 24, 2020

Qualified Immunity 16 Defendants assert that even if excessive force was used, they are entitled to a 17 qualified immunity defense, barring Plaintiff’s claims. … In determining whether an officer is entitled to qualified 22 immunity, the court considers (1) whether there has been a violation of a constitutional 23 right, and (2) whether that right was clearly established at the

Guy v. Lorenzen

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

immunity doctrine, government officials acting in their official 11 capacities are immunized from civil liability unless their actions “violate clearly 12 established statutory or constitutional rights of which … Clearly Established Constitutional Right 6 The Court turns to the second prong of the qualified immunity analysis: a clearly 7 established constitutional right.

Miranda v. Madden

District Court, S.D. California · Apr 28, 2021

Qualified Immunity Defense 19 Qualified immunity shields government officials from liability for civil damages 20 unless their conduct violates clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which … □ 1 Defendants argue they are entitled to qualified immunity because established 2 || preexisting law did not give them “fair warning” that their conduct was unlawful.

Soler v. San Diego, County of

District Court, S.D. California · Dec 4, 2019

; and (4) whether 8 Defendants Wilkins and Hobbs are entitled at this stage of the proceedings to dismissal of 9 Plaintiff’s federal claims against them based on qualified immunity. … Cty. of Tulare, 666 F.3d 631, 639 (9th Cir. 2012) (“[G]overnment 10 defendants have the burden of establishing that they are entitled to immunity for an actual 11 policy decision made by an employee.”). Cal. Gov.

Parker v. SDSU Police Dept (SDSUPD)

District Court, S.D. California · Jun 10, 2022

Where the defense of qualified 5 immunity is raised, the plaintiff must show that the right was clearly established at the time 6 of the challenged conduct. Ashcroft, 563 U.S. at 735. … Oct. 8, 2019) (accepting qualified 16 immunity defense based on pro se plaintiffs’ “wholesale failure to carry their burden of 17 identifying clearly established law”); see also Ashcroft, 563 U.S. at 742 (“The general

Rincon Band of Mission Indians v. County of San Diego

324 F. Supp. 371 · District Court, S.D. California · Mar 17, 1971

Each statute qualifies the grant by excluding certain types of state laws. … denying certiorari on the ground that important federal questions were presented: whether the ordinance constituted an “encumbrance” as that word is used in Public Law 280; whether a non-Indian lessee was entitled to any immunity

St. Sauver v. Byrd-Hunt

District Court, S.D. California · Aug 5, 2021

When 4 considering whether an officer is entitled to qualified immunity, the Court 5 considers “(1) whether there has been a violation of a constitutional right; 6 and (2) whether that right was clearly established … A plaintiff must prove both topics of inquiry to establish that officials 9 are not entitled to qualified immunity. Marsh v.

United States v. San Diego Grocers Association, Inc.

177 F. Supp. 352 · District Court, S.D. California · Oct 8, 1959

To the contrary, the statutes of the State of California clearly established that the word “action” is used to include criminal as well as civil prosecutions. 4 Compare United States v. … , than it could have created the corporation in the first instance with such immunity.

Vaughn v. Parker

District Court, S.D. California · Jun 10, 2022

’s § 1983 22 claims, there is no need to consider qualified immunity. … Qualified immunity shields government officials from civil damages 1 unless their conduct violates “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which 2 a reasonable person would have known.” Harlow v.

Castellanos v. United States of America

District Court, S.D. California · Feb 10, 2020

Qualified Immunity 27 The doctrine of qualified immunity shields government officials “from liability for 28 civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly … at issue was clearly established at the time of defendant’s alleged 6 misconduct.

Cejas v. Paramo

District Court, S.D. California · Sep 9, 2019

For example, in response to Defendants’ assertion of 8 the qualified immunity defense (Doc. … clearly established at the time of the alleged First Amendment violations. 11 Defendants had fair notice that retaliation violated the First Amendment.

Moody v. California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation

District Court, S.D. California · Sep 3, 2019

[T]his language . . . clearly 3 establishes that the . . . ADA . . . requires only but for causation.”)). But see Lee v. … Mar. 23, 2018) (“[B]ringing an ADA claim allows plaintiffs to skirt the doctrine of qualified immunity, because ADA claims are asserted against the agency that employs the 28