Case law

R W v. Columbia Basin College

District Court, E.D. Washington · Oct 4, 2019

If the court finds that the constitutional right was clearly established, but 9 that the defendant made a reasonable mistake in applying the law, then the defendant 10 is entitled to qualified immunity. Id. … Thornton are protected by qualified immunity.

Doney v. Uttecht

District Court, E.D. Washington · Jun 25, 2021

to qualified 15 immunity from Plaintiff’s claim. … To determine if 20 an official is entitled to qualified immunity, courts ask two questions: whether the 21 alleged facts state a violation of a constitutional right and whether the right is clearly 1 established such

Confederated Tribes of the Colville Indian Reservation v. Washington

446 F. Supp. 1339 · District Court, E.D. Washington · Feb 22, 1978

of intergovernmental tax immunity. … This is clearly insufficient to establish an interference with tribal self-government. Fort Mojave Tribe v. County of San Bernardino, 543 F.2d 1253 (9th Cir. 1976), cert. denied, 430 U.S. 983 (1977).

Doney v. Uttecht

District Court, E.D. Washington · Feb 28, 2022

is entitled to 21 qualified immunity. 1 The qualified immunity doctrine shields government officials from liability 2 for civil damages in § 1983 actions unless … Regardless 2 of the legitimacy of this penological interest, Defendant also is entitled to qualified 3 immunity from monetary damages because Plaintiff fails to demonstrate that his free 4 exercise right was “clearly

Key Tronic Corp. v. United States

766 F. Supp. 865 · District Court, E.D. Washington · Aug 12, 1991

Absent express congressional consent to the award of interest in addition to a general waiver of immunity to suit, the United States is immune from an interest award. Library of Congress v. … CERCLA clearly states that in cost recovery actions under § 107 *869 the plaintiff may recover prejudgment interest.

Gausvik v. Perez

239 F. Supp. 2d 1067 · District Court, E.D. Washington · Sep 16, 2002

Qualified immunity shields § 1983 defendants “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 … This issue of material fact precludes awarding qualified immunity to Perez for an alleged violation of plaintiffs clearly established constitutional right to familial association. 28 5.

Barnes v. Byrd

511 F. Supp. 693 · District Court, E.D. Washington · Apr 15, 1981

All Defendants have moved for summary judgment of dismissal with the DSHS Defendants asserting their entitlement to qualified good faith immunity in addition to the general defense of the lawfulness of their actions. … To obtain a protectible right, “a person clearly must have more than an abstract need or desire for it.” Id., 577 , 92 S.Ct. 2709 .

Olsen v. United States Ex Rel. United States Department of Agriculture

546 F. Supp. 2d 1122 · District Court, E.D. Washington · Mar 10, 2008

Moreover, the Plaintiffs have argued that the relationship between themselves and the FCIC can not be properly qualified as “reinsurance” for the purposes of state law. … Section 400.96 negates the Plaintiffs’ contention that the Policy and the SRA established privity of contract.

Hennessey v. Washington, Department of Social & Health Services

627 F. Supp. 137 · District Court, E.D. Washington · Aug 27, 1985

Although a state may waive its Eleventh Amendment immunity, clearly the State of Washington has not done so. McConnell v. Critchlow, 661 F.2d 116 (9th Cir.1981). Accordingly, plaintiffs’ claims against DSHS must fail. … Goode, 423 U.S. 362 , 96 S.Ct. 598 , 46 L.Ed.2d 561 (1976) and its progeny for the *141 proposition that such claims do not establish a cause of action under § 1983.

Finch v. Department of Corrections

District Court, E.D. Washington · Jan 8, 2025

Qualified Immunity 2 A government official is entitled to qualified immunity from a claim for 3 damages unless the plaintiff raises a genuine issue of fact showing (1) … Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity.

Thiel v. Adams County Public Hospital District 2

District Court, E.D. Washington · Aug 9, 2024

Mecham also argues he 14 is entitled to qualified immunity. … Additionally, Mecham is entitled to qualified immunity because Plaintiffs 6 have not shown any clearly established right Mecham violated, having failed to 7 establish the elements of an equal protection claim.

Velasco Ortega v. Okanogan County

District Court, E.D. Washington · Aug 8, 2024

Qualified Immunity 12 Nevertheless, Defendant Holloway argues he is entitled to qualified 13 immunity for each of Plaintiff’s constitutional claims as none are “clearly … Qualified immunity shields government actors from civil damages 15 unless their conduct violates “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights 16 of which a reasonable person would have known.” Pearson v.

Villegas v. United States

963 F. Supp. 2d 1145 · District Court, E.D. Washington · Aug 5, 2013

effect of its face, the settlement clearly waives his accounting claim, and both parties member of that settlement. … , and (ii) those facts suffice to establish the affirmative defense with certitude.”

Villegas v. United States

926 F. Supp. 2d 1185 · District Court, E.D. Washington · Jan 30, 2013

In any action against the United States, a plaintiff must establish both subject matter jurisdiction and a waiver of sovereign immunity. See Arford v. United States, 934 F.2d 229, 231 (9th Cir.1991). … Ctr., 502 F.3d 1056, 1060 (9th Cir.2007) (“[C]ourts should not undertake to infer in one cause of action when a complaint clearly states a claim under a different cause of action.”

Bell v. City of Spokane

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

Plaintiff counters by citing 19 an Eighth Circuit decision that found similar behavior violated clearly established 20 law. … ECF No. 37 at 14. 1 Qualified immunity shields government actors from civil damages unless 2 their conduct violates “clearly established statutory or constitutional

Hennessey v. STATE OF WASH., DEPT. OF SOCIAL AND HEALTH SERV.

627 F. Supp. 137 · District Court, E.D. Washington · Aug 27, 1985

Although a state may waive its Eleventh Amendment immunity, clearly the State of Washington has not done so. McConnell v. Critchlow, 661 F.2d 116 (9th Cir.1981). Accordingly, plaintiffs' claims against DSHS must fail. … Goode, 423 U.S. 362 , 96 S.Ct. 598 , 46 L.Ed.2d 561 (1976) and its progeny for the *141 proposition that such claims do not establish a cause of action under § 1983.

Nye v. Tapia

District Court, E.D. Washington · Sep 16, 2022

Second, the Court must decide whether the right was 12 “clearly established” at the time of the alleged misconduct. Id. … established at the time, and 7 Defendants are therefore entitled to qualified immunity.

Leon

District Court, E.D. Washington · Aug 13, 2026

immunity 6 because he did not violate clearly established law. … Plaintiff bears the 6 burden of identifying clearly established law under the second prong of the 7 qualified immunity analysis. Waid v.

Whiteside v. State of Wash.

534 F. Supp. 774 · District Court, E.D. Washington · Mar 26, 1982

These interests may flow from the Constitution or be established by state law. The causation requirement for civil rights claims is not satisfied by alleging mere causation in fact. … Sparkman, 435 U.S. 349 , 98 S.Ct. 1099 , 55 L.Ed.2d 331 (1976) (judge who ordered sterilization of a minor at her mother’s request held immune because no state law clearly excluded the matter from the court’s subject matter

Metcalf v. Key

District Court, E.D. Washington · Dec 9, 2019

Immunity Standard 27 Qualified immunity protects government officials sued in their individual 28 capacities from liability in § 1983 suits. … Defendants are entitled to 16 qualified immunity.