Case law

Wilcox v. Batiste

360 F. Supp. 3d 1112 · District Court, E.D. Washington · Dec 21, 2018

Qualified Immunity The parties also dispute whether Chief Batiste is entitled to qualified immunity from monetary damages. 3 ECF No. 35 at 9; ECF No. 56 at 14. … The Court begins by assessing whether the right that Chief Batiste is alleged to have violated is clearly established. *1124 A right from a federal statute or the constitution is clearly established when a reasonable official

Grenning v. Klemme

34 F. Supp. 3d 1144 · District Court, E.D. Washington · Jul 22, 2014

Qualified Immunity “[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 … Harrington would not be entitled to qualified immunity as the right to be free from arbitrary mail searches was clearly established in 2010. (ECF No. 56 at 17-18).

Hearn v. Rhay

68 F.R.D. 574 · District Court, E.D. Washington · Sep 26, 1975

to plaintiff’s burden of proving malice or unreasonable disregard of his clearly established constitutional rights. … Defendants argue that they seek immunity on the narrow basis of the extent of plaintiff’s “clearly established constitutional rights” at the time of the alleged civil rights violations and not on the basis of legal advice

Logan v. City of Pullman

392 F. Supp. 2d 1246 · District Court, E.D. Washington · Oct 4, 2005

The Supreme Court has established a two-part analysis for determining whether qualified immunity is appropriate in a suit against an officer. … In the absence of binding precedent, the Court looks to whatever law is available to ascertain whether the law is clearly established for qualified immunity purposes, including decisions of state courts, other circuits, and

Smith v. Blodgett

798 F. Supp. 637 · District Court, E.D. Washington · Sep 8, 1992

Defendant moved to dismiss this Complaint on the basis of qualified immunity, asserting that the law was not clearly established that Washington’s administrative segregation regulations created a liberty interest protected … The court did not reach the issue of qualified immunity.

Hewitt v. Grabicki

596 F. Supp. 297 · District Court, E.D. Washington · Oct 23, 1984

If the law was clearly established, the immunity defense ordinarily should fail, since a reasonable competent public official should know the law governing his conduct. … By defining the limits of qualified immunity essentially in objective terms, we provide no license to lawless conduct.

Wetmore v. Gardner

735 F. Supp. 974 · District Court, E.D. Washington · Apr 6, 1990

Qualified Immunity The defendants next contend that they are entitled to a verdict in their favor or a new trial based on the doctrine of qualified immunity. … . *983 Because it was clearly established law that the policy could be found constitutional only by a showing of legitimate penological need, the policymaker defendants were entitled to qualified immunity only if it was shown

Ryncarz v. Eikenberry

824 F. Supp. 1493 · District Court, E.D. Washington · Jun 25, 1993

Qualified Immunity “[Gjovernment officials performing discretionary functions! … Accordingly, defendants Bailey and Robertson are entitled to qualified immunity from damages.

Hargrove v. Riley

100 F. Supp. 2d 1271 · District Court, E.D. Washington · Apr 19, 2000

Qualified immunity shields government officials performing discretionary functions “[f]rom liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established constitutional rights of which a reasonable … Riley is not entitled to qualified immunity because she failed to establish that her conduct was reasonable notwithstanding the existence of clearly established law.

Chism v. Washington Ex Rel. Washington State Patrol

683 F. Supp. 2d 1145 · District Court, E.D. Washington · Jan 8, 2010

Qualified Immunity and Summary Judgment 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 … Even assuming the existence of a constitutional violation, an officer is entitled to qualified immunity if the constitutional right was not clearly established at the time of the alleged violation.

Miniken v. Walter

978 F. Supp. 1356 · District Court, E.D. Washington · Aug 26, 1997

QUALIFIED IMMUNITY Defendants contend that even if Plaintiffs constitutional rights were violated by prohibiting the delivery of Prison Legal News, they are immune from liability for damages. … A state official is entitled to qualified immunity to the extent that his conduct “does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Harlow v.

Estate of Villarreal v. Cooper

929 F. Supp. 2d 1063 · District Court, E.D. Washington · Mar 6, 2013

Fourth Amendment and Qualified Immunity The doctrine of qualified immunity protects government officials, including police officers, from liability when their conduct “does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … Whether the Right Was Clearly Established Even where a constitutional violation has occurred, qualified immunity shields an officer from suit when the right was not “clearly established” at the time of the officer’s conduct

King v. Garfield County Public Hospital District No. 1

17 F. Supp. 3d 1060 · District Court, E.D. Washington · May 1, 2014

Qualified Immunity Defense Defendants contend, in the alternative, that Craigie, Morrow, and Beehler are entitled to qualified immunity because their conduct did not violate clearly established constitutional rights. … “Only when an officer’s conduct violates a clearly established constitutional right — when the officer should have known he was violating the Constitution — does he forfeit qualified immunity.” Id.

Doggett v. Perez

348 F. Supp. 2d 1198 · District Court, E.D. Washington · Nov 18, 2004

DISCUSSION 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 … Accordingly, Perez is entitled to qualified immunity on that claim. B. Compulsory.

PETROLINO v. County of Spokane

678 F. Supp. 2d 1082 · District Court, E.D. Washington · Aug 14, 2009

The corrections officers seek qualified immunity. As a general rule, analyzing a request for qualified immunity is a two-step process. Saucier v. … Even assuming a jury issue exists with respect to whether Deputies Skinner and Leonetti violated the Constitution, they are entitled to qualified immunity unless it was clearly established on May 1, 2004, that corrections

Sinclair v. City of Grandview

973 F. Supp. 2d 1234 · District Court, E.D. Washington · Sep 26, 2013

The doctrine of qualified immunity protects government officials, including police officers, from liability when their conduct “does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable … Even where an officer’s actions amount to a violation of the Fourth Amendment, the officer will be entitled to qualified immunity if the right was not clearly established at the time of the injury.

Castillo v. Gardner

854 F. Supp. 725 · District Court, E.D. Washington · May 31, 1994

Defendants’ second argument for summary judgment is that they are entitled to qualified immunity from suit. … “Prison officials who have implemented a digital rectal probe policy are entitled to qualified immunity if, in light of the clearly established law at the time, a reasonable official could have believed that his conduct was

Jarvis v. Janney

876 F. Supp. 2d 1204 · District Court, E.D. Washington · Jun 27, 2012

Qualified Immunity Defendant Janney argues that he is immune from suit under the doctrine dí qualified immunity. 6 “[government officials performing discretionary functions [are entitled to] a qualified immunity, shielding … Accordingly, the dispositive question for purposes of the qualified immunity analysis is whether the Plaintiffs’ rights to (1) advance notice of the terminations; and (2) a meaningful opportunity to be heard was clearly established

Salim v. Mitchell

268 F. Supp. 3d 1132 · District Court, E.D. Washington · Aug 7, 2017

The Court construed a private contractor’s immunity as “qualified” and it may be. overcome “if the defendant knew or should have known that his conduct violated a right clearly established at the time of the episode in suit … Yoo, 678 F.3d 748 (9th Cir. 2012), where the court found Deputy Assistant Attorney General John Yoo was entitled to qualified immunity because it was not clearly established in 2001-2003 that the treatment which Padilla alleged

Grenning v. Stout

144 F. Supp. 3d 1241 · District Court, E.D. Washington · Nov 3, 2015

As the Magistrate Judge correctly held, prison officials carrying out their duties are immune from suit unless their behavior contravenes “clearly established federal law.” Torres v. … claims was clearly established at the time Defendants’ relevant actions occurred.