Case law

Tron-Haukebo v. Clallam County

District Court, W.D. Washington · Dec 20, 2024

be dismissed because Defendants are 12 entitled to qualified immunity. … Clearly Established Law 12 Under the second prong of qualified immunity, if the Court finds a deprivation of a 13 constitutional or statutory right the Court must determine

Eidenmuller

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

) that the right was 10 clearly established at the time of the challenged conduct.” … The 14 claims fail at the second prong—whether a right was clearly established. 15 “A right is clearly established when it is ‘sufficiently clear that every reasonable official 16 would have understood that what

United States v. Washington

66 F.R.D. 477 · District Court, W.D. Washington · Sep 16, 1974

The various motions of the tribal plaintiffs do not clearly establish whether these motions are intended to be against defendant Washington Reef Net Owners Association. … A reading of the opinion does not clearly establish whether the defendant state officers were sued in their official capacity, but in any event, the court ordered reapportionment and awarded attorneys’ fees, relying not on

Baker v. O'Reilly

District Court, W.D. Washington · Mar 10, 2023

Second, Defendants 22 claim that the R&R erred in finding “clearly established” law for qualified immunity purposes. 23 (Id. at 4.) … 16 for qualified immunity purposes.

Ballou v. McElvain

District Court, W.D. Washington · Aug 12, 2019

Qualified Immunity 4 Defendants argue that, “at a minimum,” McElvain is entitled to qualified immunity 5 because it was not clearly established that Ballou’s “private … They also argue that McElvain is entitled to qualified immunity 8 because it is not clearly established that the Equal Protection Clause extends to retaliation claims. 9 Under the qualified immunity doctrine, “government

Chang v. Vanderwielen

District Court, W.D. Washington · Jul 21, 2022

To determine whether qualified 21 immunity applies, the Court asks “whether (1) the plaintiff has plausibly alleged a violation of a 22 constitutional right, and (2) the constitutional right was ‘clearly established’ … .’”) 19 “Qualified immunity attaches when an official’s conduct does not violate clearly 20 established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” 21 Villegas v.

Miller v. Prentice

District Court, W.D. Washington · Mar 17, 2021

The officer was not entitled to qualified 6 immunity for the bystander’s excessive use of force claim because it was clearly 7 established that a taser in dart mode constituted more than trivial force. … Because the law is not clearly 4 established that Prentice used excessive force in violation of Miller’s Fourth Amendment 5 rights, Prentice is entitled to qualified immunity.

Alcantar v. City of Centralia

District Court, W.D. Washington · Oct 2, 2023

Courts may grant qualified 6 immunity on the ground that a purported right was not clearly established by prior case law. 7 Reichle, 566 U.S. at 664. 8 Plaintiffs … Villegas, 541 F.3d at 957. 19 However, where qualified immunity determinations rest solely on the “clearly 20 established” prong, Monell liability may still lie if such a constitutional violation occurred. 21

Hawn v. Clallam County Jail

District Court, W.D. Washington · May 8, 2025

Whether an official is entitled to qualified immunity “generally 13 turns on the objective legal reasonableness of the action assessed in light of the legal 14 rules that were clearly established at the time it was taken … as a matter of law 12 based on qualified immunity.

Reed v. Kariko

District Court, W.D. Washington · Jul 22, 2022

The 9 R&R does not address Defendants’ additional argument that, even if their conduct was 10 constitutionally deficient, the violations were not clearly established, and they are entitled 11 to qualified immunity. … A two-part 4 test resolves claims of qualified immunity by determining whether plaintiffs have alleged 5 facts that “make out a violation of a constitutional right,” and if so, whether the “right at 6 issue was clearly

Pruitt v. City of Edmonds

District Court, W.D. Washington · May 1, 2024

Government officials are not entitled to qualified immunity as to 4 disparate treatment claims because a reasonable person would be aware that racial discrimination violates clearly established rights. … The City itself has no right to qualified immunity; only Nelson 7 can assert qualified immunity. Nelson is not entitled to qualified immunity because he is accused of intentional race discrimination.

Hordon v. Kitsap County Sheriff's Department

District Court, W.D. Washington · Jul 27, 2020

“Law is 21 ‘clearly established’ for the purposes of qualified immunity if every reasonable official would 22 have understood that what he is doing violates the right at issue.” Wilk v. … QUALIFIED IMMUNITY 2 Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint also addresses the issue of qualified immunity in these 3 ways: at Amended Complaint (Dkt. 20, ¶ 4.31, at 11), he alleges

Mahoney v. Holder

62 F. Supp. 3d 1215 · District Court, W.D. Washington · Oct 17, 2014

“The proponent of a claim to absolute immunity bears the burden of establishing the justi *1220 fication for such immunity.” Antoine v. … “To qualify for absolute immunity, the function performed must be a judicial act with ‘a sufficiently close nexus to the adjudicative process.’

Reed v. Hammond

District Court, W.D. Washington · Mar 31, 2022

As Reed accurately points out, they do not substantively address the “second 13 prong” of the qualified immunity test: whether a reasonable official would have known 14 that their conduct violated a clearly established … established, thus entitling Defendants to qualified immunity even if they 15 violated Reed’s constitutional rights.

Chamber of Commerce of the United States v. City of Seattle

274 F. Supp. 3d 1140 · District Court, W.D. Washington · Apr 4, 2017

The Court finds that the Chamber has raised serious questions regarding both prongs of the immunity analysis. B. … of its qualifying drivers.

Roberts v. Khounphixay

District Court, W.D. Washington · Jan 22, 2021

Khounphixay’s Qualified Immunity 12 Khounphixay appeals the Court’s Order denying summary judgment and rejecting her 13 argument that she is entitled to qualified immunity. … Clearly Established 4 “[The Ninth Circuit] may properly review a denial of qualified immunity where a 5 defendant argues . . . that the facts, even when considered in

Longacre v. Smarr

District Court, W.D. Washington · Dec 13, 2019

Qualified Immunity Bars Longacre’s Claims Under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 20 Qualified immunity shields government officials from liability under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 21 unless their conduct violates clearly established … Trooper Smarr Is Entitled to Qualified Immunity 13 Qualified immunity bars suits under § 1983 unless the conduct at issue violates clearly 14 established rights which a reasonable officer would

Zayas v. Boyett

District Court, W.D. Washington · Sep 24, 2021

Because qualified immunity is an 12 13 immunity from suit rather than a mere defense to liability, this question should be resolved at the 14 … the 17 right at issue was “clearly established” at the time of a defendant's alleged misconduct.

Seafirst Corp. v. Jenkins

644 F. Supp. 1152 · District Court, W.D. Washington · Jun 20, 1986

In the court’s opinion, there is clearly an issue of fact concerning the adequacy of the notice which Andersen gave. … Love’s expert opinion contradicting Andersen’s contention, there does exist a factual issue which clearly renders summary judgment on this issue inappropriate.

Sloan Shipyards Corp. v. United States Shipping Board Emergency Fleet Corp.

268 F. 624 · District Court, W.D. Washington · Oct 4, 1920

Emergency Fleet Corporation, which by the act shall be considered a “government establishment for the purposes of this section.” … Ed. 231 ): “It is undoubtedly true that the District of Columbia is a separate political community in a certain sense, and in that sense may bo called a state; but the sovereign power of-this qualified state is not lodged