Case law

Hurd v. Garcia

454 F. Supp. 2d 1032 · District Court, S.D. California · Sep 28, 2006

Qualified Immunity Defendants assert the affirmative defense of qualified immunity. … Qualified immunity shields 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 known

Estate of Lopez ex rel. Lopez v. Torres

105 F. Supp. 3d 1148 · District Court, S.D. California · Apr 29, 2015

Plaintiffs respond that Defendant is not entitled to qualified immunity because his complaint alleges factual allegations supporting clearly established constitutional violations. (ECF No. 14 at 21-24.) … Qualified immunity shields government officials performing discretionary functions from liability for civil damages unless their conduct violates clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable

Little v. Gore

148 F. Supp. 3d 936 · District Court, S.D. California · Dec 8, 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 … Accordingly, the Court turns to whether the right was clearly established at the time of the incident. See Jensen v.

Perez v. Diaz

331 F. Supp. 3d 1101 · District Court, S.D. California · Sep 21, 2017

Applicable Law "In determining whether an officer is entitled to qualified immunity, we consider (1) whether there has been a violation of a constitutional right; and (2) whether that right was clearly established at the … If the right was not clearly established at the time of the alleged misconduct, "the officer receives qualified immunity." S.B. , 864 F.3d at 1015 .

Harper Ex Rel. Harper v. Poway Unified School District

345 F. Supp. 2d 1096 · District Court, S.D. California · Nov 4, 2004

on qualified immunity grounds. … The affirmative 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

Parkes v. County of San Diego

345 F. Supp. 2d 1071 · District Court, S.D. California · Jun 23, 2004

*1088 relationship are barred as they are entitled to qualified immunity. 1. … Legal Standard Government officials enjoy qualified immunity from civil damages unless their conduct violates “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.”

Crowe v. County of San Diego

303 F. Supp. 2d 1050 · District Court, S.D. California · Feb 17, 2004

“If the law did not put the officer on notice that his conduct would be clearly unlawful, summary judgment based on qualified immunity is appropriate.” Saucier, 533 U.S. at 202 , 121 S.Ct. 2151 . … may be correct that this issue has not been addressed by the Supreme Court, Ninth Circuit law can “clearly establish” the law for qualified immunity purposes.

Scott v. Garcia

370 F. Supp. 2d 1056 · District Court, S.D. California · Jan 4, 2005

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 … clearly established.

Washington v. Garcia

977 F. Supp. 1067 · District Court, S.D. California · Sep 10, 1997

QUALIFIED IMMUNITY An officer is entitled to qualified immunity so long as his or her actions do not violate “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” … The qualified immunity standard requires a two-step analysis: (1) Was the law governing *1074 the official’s conduct clearly established?

Thomas v. Dillard

212 F. Supp. 3d 938 · District Court, S.D. California · Aug 10, 2016

42 U.S.C. § 1983 causes of action on the basis of qualified immunity. … No Qualified Immunity for Civil Code section 52.1. There is no qualified immunity defense available to a defendant for a Civil Code section 52.1 cause of action. See Venegas v.

Ministry of Defense & Support for the Armed Forces of the Islamic Republic of Iran v. Cubic Defense Systems, Inc.

236 F. Supp. 2d 1140 · District Court, S.D. California · Nov 26, 2002

The legislative history clearly supports this conclusion. … It is, therefore, the product of two acts on the part of the MOD, either of which is sufficient to establish a voluntary waiver of general jurisdictional immunity.

Estate of Hernandez-Rojas ex rel. Hernandez v. United States

62 F. Supp. 3d 1169 · District Court, S.D. California · Sep 29, 2014

Qualified Immunity The doctrine of qualified immunity shields government officials from civil liability so long as their conduct does not violate clearly established constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would … Further, that right was clearly established at the time of the incident. Accordingly,' none of the defendants are entitled to summary judgment on qualified immunity. B.

Arellano v. Jones

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

Qualified Immunity 19 Finally, Defendants claim that they are entitled to qualified immunity with respect 20 to Arellano’s Eighth Amendment claims. See Defs.’ … , 7 there is no necessity for further inquiries concerning qualified immunity.”

Selico v. Jackson

201 F. Supp. 475 · District Court, S.D. California · Jan 23, 1962

Clearly, the complaint in the case at bar alleges facts indicating the fulfillment of both of the above conditions. … DEFENDANT EVANS IS NOT IMMUNE FROM SUIT.

ICR Graduate School v. Honig

758 F. Supp. 1350 · District Court, S.D. California · Mar 7, 1991

After finding that the defendants had acted in good faith, the jury denied monetary relief under the doctrine of qualified immunity. Id. … qualified immunity doctrine.

Walker v. Woodford

593 F. Supp. 2d 1140 · District Court, S.D. California · Aug 28, 2008

Qualified Immunity Defendants have raised the affirmative defense of qualified immunity. … This, too, supports their defense of qualified immunity.

Bonilla v. City of San Diego

755 F. Supp. 293 · District Court, S.D. California · Jan 4, 1991

under the fourth amendment may still be reasonable under the qualified immunity test. … As the Supreme Court has .stated, “[Gjovernment officials performing discretionary functions are shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional

Reynolds v. County of San Diego

858 F. Supp. 1064 · District Court, S.D. California · Jul 14, 1994

of clearly established law and the information the officers possessed. … Just as the officer in Rivera was entitled to immunity, Jackson is entitled to immunity. As previously established, Jackson’s actions were objectively reasonable.

Sommer v. United States

713 F. Supp. 2d 1191 · District Court, S.D. California · May 10, 2010

Plaintiff alleges that she was deprived of her clearly established rights under the Fourth, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendments. Id. at ¶ 69. … “When the functions of prosecutors and detectives are the same ... the immunity that protects them is also the same,” therefore the prosecutors’ actions were only protected by qualified, rather than absolute, immunity.

Organics v. Cnty. of San Diego

341 F. Supp. 3d 1129 · District Court, S.D. California · Sep 18, 2018

Thus, as one California Court of Appeal has stated: [T]he status of [a] qualified [marijuana] patient does not confer an immunity from arrest. … The section provided an exception where "a qualified patient or primary caregiver has a doctor's recommendation that this quantity does not meet the qualified patient's medical needs, the qualified patient or primary caregiver