Case law

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.

Barajas Centeno v. City of Carlsbad

District Court, S.D. California · Dec 22, 2021

Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 20 800, 818-19 (1982) (“if the law was clearly established, the immunity defense ordinarily 21 should fail, since a reasonably competent public official should know the law governing 22 his conduct … Pelzer, 536 U.S. 730, 741 (2002) (“officials can still be on notice 4 that their conduct violates established law even in novel factual circumstances.”) Walker 5 is not entitled to qualified immunity.

Soler v. County of San Diego

274 F. Supp. 3d 1043 · District Court, S.D. California · Aug 11, 2017

Alternatively, Defendants argue that even if a constitutional violation occurred, the individual officers are entitled to qualified immunity, and liability cannot be established against the County. *1050 I. … An officer ..is entitled. to qualified immunity unless (1) facts viewed in the light most favorable to the injured party show that *1056 the officer violated a constitutional right, and (2) the right was clearly established

Taormina v. California Department of Corrections

946 F. Supp. 829 · District Court, S.D. California · Nov 27, 1996

Although “business establishment,” for the purposes of §§ 51 and 51.5, is used in the broadest sense reasonably possible, 4 plaintiffs cite no authority, nor make any reasonable argument, that a state prison qualifies as … Code § 51 et seq is GRANTED because a prison does not qualify as a business establishment for purposes of Cal.Civ.Code § 51. IT IS SO ORDERED. 1 .

Norwood v. Woodford

661 F. Supp. 2d 1148 · District Court, S.D. California · Oct 7, 2009

Qualified Immunity Because the Court has found no violation of Plaintiffs Eighth Amendment rights, the Court need not reach any issues regarding qualified immunity. See County of Sacramento v. … Katz, 533 U.S. 194 , 201, 121 S.Ct. 2151 , 150 L.Ed.2d 272 (2001) (“If no constitutional right would have been violated were the allegations established, there is no necessity for further inquiries concerning qualified immunity

Prime Healthcare Services, Inc. v. Harris

216 F. Supp. 3d 1096 · District Court, S.D. California · Oct 31, 2016

Neither party specifies beyond a high level of generality what constitutes the clearly established law at issue in the instant qualified immunity analysis. … Instead, Plaintiffs assert that them FAC survives the qualified immunity defense by reiterating their claims and providing cursory analysis of how Defendant’s conduct violates clearly established law. (Dkt.

United States v. Chaplin

54 F. Supp. 926 · District Court, S.D. California · Apr 14, 1944

is firmly established by many English authorities. … However, both cases clearly demonstrate that where a judge violates a criminal statute, he is held to the same responsibility as any citizen.

Petition of Kwan Shun Yue

94 F. Supp. 804 · District Court, S.D. California · Dec 29, 1950

This matter comes before the court on the motion of the United States of America for an order denying the petition of Kwan Shun Yue, a National of China, for naturalization, on the ground (1) that petitioner has failed to establish … The words, “residing therein” indicate clearly the intention of the treaty making powers to provide for permanent residence or domicile in the United States on the part of Chinese merchants and the other classes therein enumerated

Fletcher v. Union Pacific Railroad

194 F.R.D. 666 · District Court, S.D. California · May 5, 2000

Surveillance Films Constitute Work Product And Are Entitled To Qualified Immunity From Discovery. Numerous courts have held that surveillance films constitute work product and are subject to qualified immunity. … CSX Transportation, Inc., 162 F.R.D. 108, 111 (E.D.N.C.1995); Fisher, 152 F.R.D. at 150-51 (holding that surveillance films are work product entitled to qualified immunity from discovery).

Barela v. Variz

36 F. Supp. 2d 1254 · District Court, S.D. California · Feb 19, 1999

. § 1915 (g) until Plaintiff pays filing fees; 2) the action should be brought by petition for a writ of habeas corpus; 3) the complaint fails to state a claim; 4) Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity; and 5) Plaintiff … immunity.

Jones v. Garcia

430 F. Supp. 2d 1095 · District Court, S.D. California · Mar 30, 2006

Qualified Immunity Because the Court FINDS there is no triable issue regarding the alleged violations of Plaintiffs Eighth Amendment rights, the Court does not need to reach the issue of qualified immunity. … Qualified Immunity Because the Court has found no triable issue regarding the alleged violations of Plaintiffs Eighth Amendment rights, the Court need not reach any issues regarding qualified immunity.

Oppenheimer v. Stillwell

132 F. Supp. 761 · District Court, S.D. California · Jul 20, 1955

The uncontradicted affidavit establishes that the defendant was acting under the color of state law and it thereby nullifies that defect in the plaintiff’s complaint and averts a dismissal on that ground, but it poses another … The tradition of judicial immunity is older than that of legislative immunity and certainly the reasons for its retention are at least as compelling.

Hayes v. Garcia

461 F. Supp. 2d 1198 · District Court, S.D. California · Oct 27, 2006

Defendant further argues she is entitled to qualified immunity. (Id. at 20-24, citing Saucier v. … Qualified Immunity Because the Court has found no violation of Plaintiffs Eighth Amendment rights, the Court need not reach any issues regarding qualified immunity. See County of Sacramento v.

Wilkins v. Ramirez

455 F. Supp. 2d 1080 · District Court, S.D. California · Oct 2, 2006

A correctional officer is not entitled to qualified immunity where (1) “the facts alleged show that the officer’s conduct violated a constitutional right,” and (2) “the constitutional right in question was clearly established … To avoid qualified immunity, a plaintiff must make the following showing: (1) defendant violated a constitutional right, and (2) the right violated was clearly established such that it would be clear to a reasonable officer

Hammond Co. v. United States

568 F. Supp. 309 · District Court, S.D. California · Jul 14, 1983

Courts should be loathe to fashion from whole cloth affirmative duties absent some clearly expressed common law or statutory imperative, particularly in interpreting a statutory waiver of sovereign immunity. … Consequently, the Court need not address the issue whether Swiss francs qualify as “money” within the meaning of 26 U.S.C. § 7426 (g).

Hayes v. Dovey

914 F. Supp. 2d 1125 · District Court, S.D. California · Nov 26, 2012

Qualified Immunity Finally, Defendants argue even if genuine issues of material fact exist to show Plaintiffs Eighth Amendment rights were violated, they are nevertheless entitled to qualified immunity. Defs.’ … “Qualified immunity shields government officials from civil damages liability unless the official violated a statutory or constitutional right that was clearly established at the time of the challenged conduct.”

Toranto v. Jaffurs

297 F. Supp. 3d 1073 · District Court, S.D. California · Mar 20, 2018

Plaintiff further maintains sections 43.8 and 47(c) provide only qualified immunities. *1098 He contends Defendants are not entitled to immunity under either section 43.8 or 47(c), because they acted with malice, and without … Immunity under Parker applies if (1) "the challenged restraint is 'clearly articulated and affirmatively expressed as state policy' " and (2) the policy is " 'actively supervised by the State itself."

Synbiotics Corp. v. Heska Corp.

137 F. Supp. 2d 1198 · District Court, S.D. California · Sep 8, 2000

Claims 1 and 6 both qualify as Jepson 1 or improvement claims. … Welch’s Table 1 clearly discloses that each category’s first measurement (immunized rabbits, natural infections, and zoonotic human infections) are the controls.

Buckley v. Gomez

36 F. Supp. 2d 1216 · District Court, S.D. California · Oct 8, 1997

Qualified Immunity The qualified immunity standard requires a two-step analysis: (1) Was the law governing the official's conduct clearly established? … Washington, 390 U.S. 333 , 88 S.Ct. 994 , 19 L.Ed.2d 1212 (1968) (per curiam), was clearly established at the time of Plaintiff's allegations.

Marsh v. San Diego County

432 F. Supp. 2d 1035 · District Court, S.D. California · May 5, 2006

Abbey, 263 F.3d 1070 (9th Cir.2001), which held, “we are persuaded that there is a clearly established constitutional due process right not to be subjected to criminal charges on the basis of false evidence that was deliberately … Instead, Plaintiff argues the Court should follow the intent of Congress in providing only a qualified immunity for reporters of abuse. Id.