Case law

Pitcher v. Garrett

District Court, D. Oregon · Apr 5, 2021

Qualified Immunity County Defendants also argue that Ganger is protected by qualified immunity. … Qualified immunity, however, is only an immunity from suit for damages, it is not an immunity from suit for declaratory or injunctive relief. See L.A. Police Protective League v.

Schmitz

District Court, D. Oregon · Nov 24, 2025

But a defendant is entitled to qualified immunity from liability for civil damages under § 1983 if their conduct “does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would … Block, 27 F.3d 1357, 1362 (9th Cir. 1994), to argue that “[a]n officer is not entitled to qualified immunity on the grounds that the law is not clearly established every time a novel method is used to inflict injury.”

Sinclair v. Blewett

District Court, D. Oregon · Jan 2, 2024

In concluding the Defendants were entitled to qualified immunity, the court noted: Plaintiffs have provided no precedent, and the Court has found none, to suggest that Defendants violated any clearly … established constitutional right, and qualified immunity will be granted on that basis.”

Paul

District Court, D. Oregon · May 25, 2026

Qualified Immunity (Defendants Kelly & Peters) The State Defendants argue that Defendants Kelly and Peters (acting in their individual capacities) are entitled to qualified immunity because “[r]easonable … “Qualified immunity protects government officials from liability under § 1983 ‘unless (1) they violated a federal statutory or constitutional right, and (2) the unlawfulness of their conduct was clearly established at the

Babiy v. Oregon Health & Science University

District Court, D. Oregon · Apr 22, 2024

The second step is to determine “whether the right was clearly established.” Id. Courts have discretion to assess either prong of the qualified immunity test first. Id. at 236. … “‘Qualified immunity attaches when an official’s conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.’” Johnson v.

Nunez v. Jones

District Court, D. Oregon · Nov 20, 2019

on the issue of qualified immunity. … A defendant pleading qualified immunity is entitled to a dismissal before discovery unless the plaintiff’s allegations state a claim that violates clearly established law. See Mitchell v.

Mathisen v. Oregon Health and Science University

District Court, D. Oregon · Sep 20, 2023

After that, “in the absence of binding precedent, [courts] look to whatever decisional law is available to ascertain whether the law is clearly established for qualified immunity purposes, including decisions of state … As previously noted, qualified immunity is only an immunity from damages; it is not an immunity from declaratory or injunctive relief. L.A.

Garcia III v. Amsberry

District Court, D. Oregon · Mar 5, 2020

Nonetheless, defendants argue that qualified immunity defeats plaintiff’s claim. 3 - OPINION AND ORDER “Qualified immunity attaches when an official’s conduct does not … Accordingly, it was not clearly established that plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment rights would be violated by exposure to a warm decontamination shower in these circumstances, and defendants are entitled to qualified immunity

Pelster Ex Rel. Boyer v. Walker

185 F. Supp. 2d 1174 · District Court, D. Oregon · Aug 20, 2001

The Court requests supplemental briefing concerning Defendants’ qualified immunity defense to specifically address the two-step analysis set forth in Saucier v. … Individual Defendants’ Qualified Immunity Defense Requires Further Briefing Individual Defendants argue they are entitled to qualified immunity from liability for Plaintiffs’ § 1983 claims.

Craig

District Court, D. Oregon · Jan 13, 2026

“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 … After that, “in the absence of binding precedent, [courts] look to whatever decisional law is available to ascertain whether the law is clearly established for qualified immunity purposes, including decisions of state courts

Jenkins v. Peters

District Court, D. Oregon · Aug 28, 2025

clearly established at the time the action was taken.” … Here, plaintiff has failed to carry the heavy burden of showing that defendants’ conduct violated a “clearly established” right and thus defendants are entitled to qualified immunity. See Jimenez-Mendez v.

United States v. Oregon State Bar

385 F. Supp. 507 · District Court, D. Oregon · Nov 25, 1974

(A) A lawyer shall not enter into an agreement for, charge or collect an illegal or clearly excessive fee. … But I am clearly of opinion, that such is not the true sense of the word, as used in the 32d section.

Darmody v. Clatsop County

District Court, D. Oregon · Mar 1, 2024

his conduct violated a clearly established right. … Alternatively, Defendant Parks is entitled to qualified immunity because a reasonable official in his position would not have been on notice that his conduct violated a clearly established right.

Vanderzanden v. Lowell School District No. 71

369 F. Supp. 67 · District Court, D. Oregon · Sep 5, 1973

The school board members possess qualified immunity from liability for performance of official duties in good faith, although that immunity may not bar recovery in the appropriate factual situation. Hayes v. … Plaintiff insists that the school administration had the burden of going forward to establish the reasons for her dismissal. I disagree.

Johnson v. Garrett

District Court, D. Oregon · Sep 13, 2024

Apr. 16, 2010) (request for admission to plaintiff whether a right is clearly established for the purposes of qualified immunity was not proper under Rule 36 because it asked plaintiff to admit a legal conclusion) (citing … Once the defense of qualified immunity is raised by the defendant, the plaintiff bears the burden of showing that the rights allegedly violated were “clearly established.” LSO, Ltd. v.

Castillo v. Bush

District Court, D. Oregon · Aug 15, 2024

Qualified Immunity Qualified immunity “protects government officials from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory … Plaintiff contends that Defendant Bush is not entitled to qualified immunity because the law applicable to the consent and exigency exceptions was clearly established based on Randolph, supra, and Bonivert, supra, respectively

Stringer v. United States Department of Agriculture (Forest Service)

63 F. Supp. 3d 1269 · District Court, D. Oregon · Oct 21, 2014

The state also did not establish that as a camper, plaintiffs’ use was limited to the piece of land associated with the charge.”) (emphasis added); see also Colin v. United States, No. … This Court reserves judgment as to whether either the camping fee or ski-lift fee qualify as - "charges” under ORS § 105.672(l)(a).

Hancock v. Oregon Health And Science University

District Court, D. Oregon · Feb 8, 2024

Qualified Immunity Government officials are entitled to qualified immunity if the law governing the official's conduct was not clearly established. Thompson v. … However, even if the law governing the official's conduct was clearly established, qualified immunity may still apply if a reasonable official could have believed his conduct was lawful. Id.

Santiago v. Tykol

District Court, D. Oregon · Aug 19, 2024

Hughes, 584 U.S. 100, 109 (2018) (Sotomayor, J., dissenting) (disagreeing with the use of qualified immunity “as an absolute shield” and misuse of the “clearly established” standard); see generally Scott Michelman, The … Even if Officer Tykol’s seizures did violate Plaintiff’s Fourth Amendment rights, those rights were not sufficiently clearly established at the time of arrest to evade qualified immunity’s protections.

Oracle America, Inc. v. Oregon Health Insurance Exchange Corp.

80 F. Supp. 3d 1168 · District Court, D. Oregon · Jan 13, 2015

the State waived sovereign immunity from the copyright claims in this action via the venue provision in the OHA OLSA. … sovereign immunity for the copyright claim in this Federal Action pursuant to the venue clause in the OHA OLSA.