Case law

Thompson v. Central Valley School District No 365

District Court, E.D. Washington · Aug 15, 2024

Thus, Mr. 9 Small is entitled to qualified immunity with respect to his decision to place 10 Plaintiff on administrative leave. 11 Similarly, it was not clearly established … Additionally, the 20 individual Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity because it was not clearly 21 established under the facts of this case that transferring Plaintiff to a teaching 22 position could violate

Mendoza v. Owen

District Court, E.D. Washington · Jun 12, 2024

However, qualified immunity shields 17 government actors from civil damages unless their conduct violates “clearly 18 established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would 19 have known … show a violation of a constitutional right 3 and (2) whether that right was “clearly established at the time of the violation.” 4 Horton by Horton v.

Livermore v. Tonhofer

District Court, E.D. Washington · Oct 22, 2020

are entitled to qualified immunity. … clearly established statutory 8 or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.”

Schinmann v. United States

618 F. Supp. 1030 · District Court, E.D. Washington · Sep 18, 1985

As a result, the statutory exception undoubtedly preserves sovereign immunity with respect to a broad range of Government actions. … Plaintiffs cite Dalehite in an attempt to establish that the intent of Congress in creating the discretionary immunity exception was to immunize the government only where no negligence was present on the part of any government

Clark v. Bonded Adjustment Co.

176 F. Supp. 2d 1062 · District Court, E.D. Washington · Dec 3, 2001

Witness Immunity The defendants argue that Dillin, who revealed that Bonded was attempting to collect a service fee greater than what he had actually been paid, is immune from suit based on his testimony, and that therefore … Witness immunity is simply not relevant to the issues put forward by the plaintiffs. 2.

Peterson v. City of Yakima

District Court, E.D. Washington · Jan 23, 2020

immunity as a matter of law under the second prong of the 21 1 qualified immunity analysis, whether the constitutional right was clearly established … Even if a reviewing court were to reinstate Plaintiff’s Fourth Amendment 13 claims, the Court finds that the individual Defendants are entitled to qualified 14 immunity because there is no clearly established authority

Henry v. Washington Department of Health

District Court, E.D. Washington · Mar 29, 2024

immunity grounds—namely, that they did not violate any 8 clearly established First Amendment right. … Clearly Established Law 5 Next, Defendants argue that the Individual Defendants are entitled to qualified 6 immunity because it was not clearly established under the law at the

Pleasant v. State of Washington

District Court, E.D. Washington · Mar 31, 2025

“To determine whether an officer is entitled to 2 qualified immunity, the Court asks, in the order it chooses, (1) whether the alleged 3 misconduct violated a constitutional right and (2) whether the right was clearly … Therefore, law enforcement officers generally have qualified 17 immunity when acting pursuant to a warrant. See id. at 555-56.

Zarate v. Effland

District Court, E.D. Washington · Apr 23, 2024

As such, Plaintiff has not established causation and she has 16 failed to state a deliberate fabrication of evidence claim. 17 Lastly, Defendants appear to be entitled to qualified immunity. … show Defendants’ conduct violated a constitutional right; 13 and 2) whether the right was clearly established.

Warnick v. Washington Education Ass'n

593 F. Supp. 66 · District Court, E.D. Washington · Jun 8, 1984

ANTITRUST IMMUNITY Even if a claim had been stated, and even if the plaintiffs in this action had standing to sue, the defendant WEA is immune from prosecution under the labor exemptions to the federal antitrust laws. … Since providing its members with TSA’s is clearly in the union’s self-interest, the dispositive issue under Hutcheson is whether defendant agents are a “non-labor” group within the meaning of that case.

Crowley Marine Services, Inc. v. FEDNAV Ltd.

924 F. Supp. 1030 · District Court, E.D. Washington · Oct 10, 1995

The plaintiff bears the burden of establishing the court’s jurisdiction. See Schwarzer, Tashima and Wagstaffe, Federal Civil Procedure Before Trial §§ 9:85-87 (1993). B. … Clearly, damage from the release of hazardous substances by the Corps is related to the Corps’s operation and maintenance of Levee 12-1 of the McNary Lock and Dam Project.

Nicacio v. United States Immigration & Naturalization Service

595 F. Supp. 19 · District Court, E.D. Washington · Aug 31, 1984

However, government officials performing discretionary functions are shielded from liability for civil damages if their conduct does not violate clearly established constitutional rights. Procunier v. … In my judgment, the rights of citizens to travel upon the public highways without unreasonable interference have been clearly established.

Miguleva v. Washington State Department of Natural Resources

District Court, E.D. Washington · Apr 25, 2023

Eleventh Amendment Immunity 13 Defendant moves for summary judgment on Plaintiff’s state law claims on 14 the grounds that Defendant is protected by Eleventh Amendment immunity … Plaintiff filed this action in federal court; 14 therefore, Defendant did not waive immunity by removing the case, and Defendant 15 clearly asserted immunity as an affirmative defense in its Answer.

Cruz v. Ferry County

District Court, E.D. Washington · Apr 10, 2025

Ct. 729 (1975). 7 Qualified immunity protects a government official from suit for conduct that 8 “does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a 9 reasonable person would … Ct. 1350 (2011). 13 The individual Ferry County Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity 14 and thus summary judgment. There is no clearly established law that Mr.

Youker v. Hillhouse

District Court, E.D. Washington · Feb 19, 2021

ECF No. 56 at 7–8. 8 The doctrine of qualified immunity shields government actors from civil 9 liability under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 if “their conduct does not violate clearly established 10 statutory or constitutional … need not reach the clearly established prong.

Richey v. Duncan

District Court, E.D. Washington · Jul 16, 2024

Qualified Immunity 19 “Qualified immunity balances two important interests—the need to hold 20 public officials accountable when they exercise power irresponsibly and the … to show a violation of a constitutional 26 right and (2) whether that right was “clearly established at the time of the 27 violation.”

Richey v. Aiyeku

District Court, E.D. Washington · May 17, 2021

immunity on Plaintiff’s retaliation claim. … The Ninth Circuit’s decision is final on the issue of Defendants’ 13 qualified immunity. 14 The Court entered summary judgment for Defendants on Plaintiff’s

Spencer v. City of Spokane

District Court, E.D. Washington · Nov 18, 2019

In their motion, Defendants argue that DPA Evans has 8 absolute immunity and, in the alternative, qualified immunity. … Second, the court must determine whether the identified constitutional right 7 was clearly established at the time of the alleged violation.

Cassidy v. United States

875 F. Supp. 1438 · District Court, E.D. Washington · Jan 27, 1994

A regulation requiring non-Indians to obtain a permit before fishing in the Reservation Zone is clearly action which could be taken by the Government. … Congress’ use of the phrase "paramount use” clearly indicates that non-exclusive use of the set-aside area was contemplated by Congress.

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Spokane Concrete Products, Inc.

534 F. Supp. 518 · District Court, E.D. Washington · Mar 12, 1982

Defendant argues it has met its burden because the applicant selected was assertedly better qualified than Ms. … It is concluded, however, that defendant did utilize subjective criteria, and in this instance, has not met its burden of showing clearly and convincingly that Ms. Sellers-McKenna would not have been favored over Mr.