Case law

Canell v. Beyers

840 F. Supp. 1378 · District Court, D. Oregon · Dec 7, 1993

The threshold determination of whether the law governing the conduct at issue is clearly established, and whether a reasonable official could have believed his conduct was lawful in light of clearly established legal principles … Qualified Immunity: Defendants contend they are entitled to qualified immunity because plaintiff has no right to be free from cross-gender searches and because prison officials have a legitimate penological purpose in conducting

Burnard v. Oregon Sate Hospital

District Court, D. Oregon · Oct 3, 2025

For that reason, assuming Plaintiffs somehow stated a claim, Defendants would still be entitled to qualified immunity. See Kisela v. … Hughes, 584 U.S. 100, 104 (2018) (“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.”)

Hamilton

District Court, D. Oregon · Feb 17, 2026

“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.” White v. … Tucker, 28 F.4th 54, 64 (9th Cir. 2022) (“A government officer is nevertheless entitled to qualified immunity if the plaintiff’s rights were not clearly established at the time of the alleged misconduct.”).

Olmsted v. Douglas County

District Court, D. Oregon · Jul 31, 2023

Government officials are not entitled to qualified immunity if their conduct violates “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Rivas-Villegas v. … See Id. at 657 (“Our qualified-immunity cases illustrate the importance of drawing inferences in favor of the nonmovant, even when . . . a court decides only the clearly-established prong of the standard.”); Anderson, 477

Kendoll

District Court, D. Oregon · Mar 26, 2026

whether Gardner is entitled to qualified immunity. … Qualified Immunity Having found that plaintiff’s constitutional rights were not violated, Gardner is also entitled to qualified immunity. See Cuevas v.

McCrae v. City of Salem

District Court, D. Oregon · Mar 10, 2023

qualified immunity at this stage.” … An officer who has violated the Fourth Amendment may nonetheless be entitled to qualified immunity so long as the officer did not violate “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person

Boysen v. Peacehealth

District Court, D. Oregon · Aug 19, 2024

Defendants in a Section 1983 action are entitled to qualified immunity from damages for civil liability if their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person … For purposes of qualified immunity, “[a] right is clearly established when it is sufficiently clear that every reasonable official would have understood that what he is doing violates that right.” Rivas-Villegas v.

Doe v. Oregon State University

District Court, D. Oregon · Jul 13, 2022

Additionally, the Court is unaware of any case indicating a district court opinion alone, without at least some appellate court precedent, qualifies as clearly established precedent in the qualified immunity context. … Because Plaintiff has failed to demonstrate a clearly established property interest in his continued enrollment at OSU, the individual Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity.

Boudjerada v. City of Eugene

District Court, D. Oregon · Mar 26, 2024

Relatedly, Defendants point out that the F&R does not include a discussion of qualified immunity as to Medary and Skinner for Plaintiffs’ Third Claim, despite qualified immunity having been raised in Defendants’ … established.

Osborne v. Vincent

District Court, D. Oregon · Aug 7, 2025

violated a clearly established constitutional right. … Pauly, 580 U.S. 73, 78-79 (2017) (“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.”)

Osborne v. Vincent

District Court, D. Oregon · Aug 11, 2025

violated a clearly established constitutional right. … Pauly, 580 U.S. 73, 78-79 (2017) (“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.”)

Albers v. Whitley

546 F. Supp. 726 · District Court, D. Oregon · Aug 31, 1982

QUALIFIED IMMUNITY. Prison officials enjoy a qualified immunity from damages in § 1983 actions. Procunier v. Navarette, 434 U.S. 555 , 561— 62, 98 S.Ct. 855, 859-60 , 55 L.Ed.2d 24 (1978). … Here, there was no clearly established constitutional right to be free from the use of deadly force administered for the necessary purpose of quelling a prison riot and rescuing a hostage.

Jefferson v. Ashley

643 F. Supp. 227 · District Court, D. Oregon · Aug 8, 1986

Whether an official prevails on a defense of qualified immunity depends on the "objective reasonableness of [his] conduct as measured by reference to clearly established law.” Id. … Plaintiff has failed to show that defendants violated any clearly established law or right.

Cannon v. Polk County/Polk County Sheriff

68 F. Supp. 3d 1267 · District Court, D. Oregon · Dec 18, 2014

Second, the court must determine whether the right was clearly established at the time of the alleged violation. Id. … Even if the violated right was clearly established at the time of the violation, the defendant is entitled to qualified immunity if his mistake as to what the law requires is reasonable. Id. at 205, 121 S.Ct. 2151 .

Murphy v. Goss

103 F. Supp. 3d 1234 · District Court, D. Oregon · Apr 16, 2015

Standards for Qualified Immunity Under Section 1983 Defendants also contend that they are entitled to qualified immunity under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 . … “whether federal rights asserted by a plaintiff were clearly established at the time of the alleged violation.” Martinez v. Stanford, 323 F.3d 1178, 1183 (9th Cir.2003). George v.

Carlin v. Manu

72 F. Supp. 2d 1177 · District Court, D. Oregon · Aug 19, 1999

established” one which would foreclose the defendants from qualified immunity. … “Qualified immunity is an affirmative defense; if the plaintiff proves that the right allegedly violated was clearly established, the burden shifts to the defendant official to prove that his or her conduct was reasonable

Hunter v. Heath

95 F. Supp. 2d 1140 · District Court, D. Oregon · Apr 11, 2000

Whether defendants are entitled to a qualified immunity defense requires a two-part analysis: “1) Was the law governing the official’s conduct clearly established? … Analysis Defendants make only one argument in favor of qualified immunity, namely that they did not violate Hunter’s clearly established constitutional rights.

Hammel v. Tri-County Metropolitan Transportation

955 F. Supp. 2d 1205 · District Court, D. Oregon · Jun 28, 2013

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 … Day would be entitled to qualified immunity if the proper standard were deliberate indifference. b) Clearly Established To avoid qualified immunity at step two, plaintiffs must show that the asserted right was clearly established

Moss v. United States Secret Service

750 F. Supp. 2d 1197 · District Court, D. Oregon · Oct 29, 2010

For instance, an allegation that Defendant A violated a plaintiffs clearly established rights does nothing to overcome Defendant B’s assertion of qualified immunity, absent some allegation that Defendant B was responsible … Federal Defendants argue that they have qualified immunity because Plaintiffs’ *1227 First Amendment rights were not clearly established at the time and the Federal Defendants’ conduct on that day was reasonable. (Fed.

American Humanist Ass'n v. United States

63 F. Supp. 3d 1274 · District Court, D. Oregon · Oct 30, 2014

Qualified Immunity Defendants argue that even if plaintiffs have a cognizable Bivens claim, the individual defendants are entitled to qualified immunity, Qualified immunity protects government officials from “liability for … Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity where they “reasonably could have believed that their conduct was lawful ‘in light of clearly established law and the information that they possessed.’ ” Cohen v.