Case law

Adamson v. Pierce County

District Court, W.D. Washington · May 25, 2022

Defendants Pastor and Bomkamp Allegedly Violated Clearly Established Rights 7 Having determined that Plaintiffs plead a plausible First Amendment retaliation claim, 8 we move to the second prog of the qualified immunity … Further, “[t]he right to 11 speak freely without retaliation has long been clearly established for the purposes of qualified 12 immunity.” Aydelotte v. Town of Skykomish, 2020 WL 4347261, at *5 (W.D. Wash.

Carlson

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

Plaintiffs’ individual capacity claims should be 8 dismissed on qualified immunity grounds. … But the Supreme Court 14 has “repeatedly told courts—and the Ninth Circuit in particular—not to define 15 clearly established law at a high level of generality.” Kisela v.

Reed v. Hammond

District Court, W.D. Washington · Jan 13, 2020

immunity from Reed’s claims as alleged as a matter of clearly 17 established law. … Dkt. 40. 7 Defendants argued that Reed had failed to establish the violation of a constitutional right 8 and, even if he did establish that violation, Defendants were entitled to qualified 9 immunity because the law

Miller v. Sawant

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

right, and (2) that the right was clearly established at the time of the challenged 13 conduct.’” … qualified immunity.

Matheson v. Kinnear

393 F. Supp. 1025 · District Court, W.D. Washington · Feb 28, 1975

Clearly the statutory pattern provides for notice and judicial review of the questions pertaining to the legality of the seizure and sale of the cigarettes as contraband. … Congress itself felt it necessary to address the immunity question and to provide tax immunity to the extent it deemed desireable [sic].

Young v. Pena

District Court, W.D. Washington · Nov 21, 2019

(emphasis added). 17 Defendants ask the Court to find that Plaintiff’s alleged privacy right to be free from the 18 search at issue was not “clearly established” at the time Defendants took the photographs. … [his] conduct deprived a victim of his rights, [he] is not entitled to 23 qualified immunity.”

Alsager v. Board of Osteopathic Medicine & Surgery

945 F. Supp. 2d 1190 · District Court, W.D. Washington · Mar 8, 2013

There are exceptions to Eleventh Amendment immunity. Pittman , at 1071. … A proceeding must be judicial in nature to qualify as an ongoing state proceeding for purposes of Younger. New Orleans Public Service, Inc. v.

Hanks v. Clark County

District Court, W.D. Washington · Jul 19, 2023

violation, the Court skips to the second step of the qualified immunity analysis— 2 whether the rights at issue were clearly established such that a reasonable officer would have 3 understood their conduct to be unlawful … 13 “In the absence of binding precedent, a court should look to whatever decisional law is available to ascertain whether the law is clearly established for qualified immunity purposes, including 23

Hadley v. Washington State Patrol

District Court, W.D. Washington · Feb 14, 2025

They argue that lethal force was reasonable, and that 3 qualified immunity protects them from suit because plaintiffs cannot show that they 4 violated a clearly established right. … A two-part test resolves 5 claims of qualified immunity by determining whether plaintiffs have alleged facts that 6 “make out a violation of a constitutional right,” and if so, whether the “right at issue was 7 ‘clearly

Farnsworth v. Armstrong

District Court, W.D. Washington · Dec 30, 2022

immunity shields officials from civil liability so long as their conduct “ ‘does 21 not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … As such, there is at least some case law to suggest that 11 Farnsworth could overcome a qualified immunity defense.

Maki v. Bremerton School District

District Court, W.D. Washington · Dec 1, 2020

QUALIFIED IMMUNITY 7 “Qualified immunity is ‘an immunity from suit rather than a mere defense to liability.’” 8 Conner v. … Defendants in a § 1983 action are entitled to qualified immunity unless their 10 conduct violates clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable 11 person would have known. Pearson v.

Rogers v. Weaver

District Court, W.D. Washington · Sep 24, 2024

Qualified Immunity 14 Finally, Defendant briefly raises the affirmative defense of qualified immunity. (Dkt. No. 15 101 at 4.) … “Qualified immunity shields government officials from civil liability unless a plaintiff 16 pleads facts showing (1) that the official violated a constitutional right, and (2) that the right was 17 ‘clearly established

Arntsen

District Court, W.D. Washington · Jul 31, 2026

The second step of the qualified immunity analysis provides that defendants are 9 entitled to qualified immunity if their conduct “does not violate clearly established statutory or 10 constitutional rights of which a … Thus, alternatively, the Court should find Defendant is entitled to 20 qualified immunity on this claim as Plaintiff fails to show Defendant Siek’s actions violated a 21 clearly established statutory or constitutional

Corbray v. Horne

District Court, W.D. Washington · Dec 7, 2023

Because Defendants still enjoy qualified immunity, Plaintiff not 18 only needs to show how they violated his rights, but that those rights are of a “clearly established 19 statutory or constitutional [magnitude] of which … And none of 2 Plaintiff’s allegations, at least on the surface, suggest that the subordinate violated a clearly 3 established right (nor does Plaintiff provide citation suggesting that it does). See Foster v.

United States v. Simon

146 F. 89 · District Court, W.D. Washington · Jun 1, 1906

The statute is mandatory and absolute; that is to say, without any qualifying phrase or exception, it declares that no testimony given by a bankrupt shall be offered in evidence, against him in any criminal proceeding. … Montana establishes another proposition, viz.: Unless the bankrupt claims the protection of the provision in section seven (9) by objecting to the introduction of testimony given by him in his bankruptcy proceedings, such

Hart v. Schneeweiss

District Court, W.D. Washington · Nov 8, 2021

Defendants in a Section 1983 action are entitled to qualified immunity from damages unless a 3 plaintiff can establish that the official in question violated a federal statutory or constitutional 4 right, and -- at the … Defendant makes a conclusory argument that he did 22 not violate a clearly established constitutional right held by plaintiff.

Selto v. Clark County

District Court, W.D. Washington · Sep 28, 2023

Nevertheless, a court may grant qualified immunity on summary judgment if it 11 determines that the right at issue was not clearly established at the time the events at issue occurred. 12 See Pearson v. … That the Constitution does not permit the use of deadly force under 15 these circumstances was clearly established at the time of these events, and Detective Anderson 16 would not be entitled to qualified immunity.

Fair v. King County

District Court, W.D. Washington · Apr 25, 2025

Fair contends that he is entitled to summary judgment as to the “clearly 20 established” constitutional right prong of the qualified immunity analysis. Dkt. … Qualified Immunity (No. 4) 2 Fair contends that he is entitled to summary judgment as to the “clearly established” 3 constitutional right prong of the qualified immunity analysis

Chang v. Vanderwielen

District Court, W.D. Washington · Apr 14, 2023

clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of 10 which a reasonable person would have known.’” … To determine whether qualified 12 immunity applies, the Court asks “whether (1) the plaintiff has plausibly alleged a violation of a 13 constitutional right, and (2) the constitutional right was ‘clearly established’

Greiner v. Wall

District Court, W.D. Washington · Mar 2, 2020

Katz, 533 U.S. 194, 202, 24 (2001), the defendant officer is not entitled to qualified immunity. … Abbasi, 137 S.Ct. at 1866 (2017). 3 The “knock and announce” law has long been clearly-established.