Case law

Shearer v. Tacoma School District No. 10

942 F. Supp. 2d 1120 · District Court, W.D. Washington · Apr 29, 2013

Jarvis is not entitled to qualified immunity because he violated plaintiffs clearly established right to due process; (4) Dr. … Jarvis is not entitled to qualified immunity because he violated plaintiffs clearly established right to due process.

Anderson v. City of Bellevue

862 F. Supp. 2d 1095 · District Court, W.D. Washington · Mar 23, 2012

Qualified Immunity 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 rights of which … was clearly established at the time of the violation.

Hill v. Washington State Department of Corrections

628 F. Supp. 2d 1250 · District Court, W.D. Washington · Mar 31, 2009

Second, Plaintiffs contend that no individual Defendant is entitled to qualified immunity because a reasonable person would know that enforcing the DOC Policy violates a clearly established constitutional right. … Qualified Immunity Defendants also urge that they are entitled to qualified immunity because Plaintiffs have not alleged violation of a clearly established constitutional right and the pre-conviction eligibility requirement

Hofschneider v. City of Vancouver

182 F. Supp. 3d 1145 · District Court, W.D. Washington · Apr 21, 2016

Schaffer also argues that his search and seizure of Hofschneider was conducted reasonably, and that, even if it was not, he is entitled to qualified immunity because any right he did violate was not “clearly established.” … the “right at issue was ‘clearly established’ at the time of the defendant’s alleged misconduct.”

Fordyce v. City of Seattle

840 F. Supp. 784 · District Court, W.D. Washington · Jul 29, 1993

Qualified immunity is “an immunity from suit rather than a mere defense to liability” and “ordinarily should be decided by the court long before trial.” Hunter v. … The Ninth Circuit has recently held: When a law enforcement officer asserts qualified immunity from liability for Fourth Amendment violations, the district court must determine whether, in light of clearly established principles

Goldsmith v. Snohomish County

558 F. Supp. 2d 1140 · District Court, W.D. Washington · Feb 15, 2008

Katz, 533 U.S. 194 , 200-01, 121 S.Ct. 2151 , 150 L.Ed.2d 272 (2001) (qualified immunity is an immunity from suit). Saucier established a two-step analysis of qualified immunity. … At step two, immunity attaches if the officer was reasonably mistaken and/or if the constitutional right was not clearly established. 1.

Cooper v. Whatcom County

District Court, W.D. Washington · Jan 11, 2023

Because of the 2 particularized nature of the qualified immunity analysis, Plaintiffs must establish that “the 3 violative nature of particular conduct is clearly established” for each of the individual Whatcom 4 Deputies … Jefferson fails to establish the objective deliberate indifference standard as a matter of law, 6 so each one is therefore entitled to qualified immunity. Dkt. No. 134 at 14–17.

M.M.T. v. United States

337 F. Supp. 3d 1099 · District Court, W.D. Washington · Aug 30, 2018

The Court will only address the qualified immunity issue because the Government and Taitano are obviously entitled qualified immunity and it is unnecessary to engage in a detailed, multi-factor analysis to determine whether … Therefore, Taitano is entitled to qualified immunity. See , e.g. , United States v.

Ostling v. City of Bainbridge Island

872 F. Supp. 2d 1117 · District Court, W.D. Washington · May 24, 2012

But qualified immunity provides a higher standard: the right must be “clearly established” at the time of the incident. The right to be free from the use of excessive force is, of course, clearly established. … And for similar reasons, the Court must deny qualified immunity. The right to medical aid in these circumstances is “clearly established,” see City of Revere v.

Amili v. City of Tukwila

31 F. Supp. 3d 1274 · District Court, W.D. Washington · Jul 10, 2014

The doctrine of qualified immunity, however, ■ protects government officers “performing discretionary functions ... from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory … See Torres, 648 F.3d at 1129 (test of whether right is clearly established cannot be so narrow that qualified immunity is transformed into absolute immunity).

Jamison v. Storm

426 F. Supp. 2d 1144 · District Court, W.D. Washington · Mar 29, 2006

Accordingly, the Court concludes that Officer English is also entitled to qualified immunity as to the state-created danger doctrine claim on the grounds the right Plaintiff asserts, even if it existed, was not clearly established … Even if a viable constitutional right existed, Officer English would be entitled to qualified immunity because that right has not been clearly established as it relates to the circumstances of this case.

Seattle Pacific University v. Haas

626 F. Supp. 539 · District Court, W.D. Washington · Oct 7, 1985

Since qualified immunity is an affirmative defense, plaintiffs argue, the court cannot consider possible qualified immunity on a motion for leave to amend a complaint. … by reference to clearly established law.

Mendoza v. City of Vancouver

269 F. Supp. 3d 1087 · District Court, W.D. Washington · Aug 29, 2017

Defendants in a Section 1983 action are entitled to qualified immunity from damages for civil liability if their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person … As above, in considering whether an official is entitled to qualified immunity, the Court may consider the second Scmcier factor, first: whether the Plaintiffs’ constitutional rights were clearly established when viewed in

Hennick v. Bowling

115 F. Supp. 2d 1204 · District Court, W.D. Washington · Sep 14, 2000

Where a § 1983 defendant has claimed qualified immunity from civil damages, plaintiff is required to show that the official has violated “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person … Qualified immunity is unavailable where, as here, the action violates an accused’s clearly established constitutional rights, and no reasonably competent police officer could believe otherwise. Anderson v.

Marcotte v. Monroe Corrections Complex

394 F. Supp. 2d 1289 · District Court, W.D. Washington · Oct 18, 2005

Disputed Material Facts Prevent the Court From Making a Qualified Immunity Determination. Defendants claim that Superintendent Moore and Dr. Kenney are entitled to qualified immunity. … In support of their qualified immunity claim as to Superintendent Moore and Dr.

Hamilton v. City of Olympia

687 F. Supp. 2d 1231 · District Court, W.D. Washington · Sep 8, 2009

were clearly established. … were clearly established at the time of the injury.

Levine v. City of Bothell

904 F. Supp. 2d 1124 · District Court, W.D. Washington · Oct 24, 2012

Qualified Immunity Defendant Ungvarsky is not entitled to qualified immunity because it is clearly established that the failure to support a warrant by oath or affirmation amounts to a federal constitutional violation. … Therefore, the Court must turn to whether the right was clearly established. Because the “oath or affirmation” requirement appears in the text of the constitution, it is clearly established law. U.S. Const, amend. IV.

Warden v. Nickels

697 F. Supp. 2d 1221 · District Court, W.D. Washington · Mar 11, 2010

“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 rights of which a reasonable person … There is also no clearly established law that would cause the Park Rule to violate Equal Protection by not passing rational basis review. Defendant Nickels is entitled to qualified immunity.

McCarthy v. Barrett

804 F. Supp. 2d 1126 · District Court, W.D. Washington · Jul 26, 2011

Qualified Immunity Government officials are entitled to qualified immunity from damages for civil liability as long as their conduct does not *1144 violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a … In analyzing a qualified immunity defense, the court must determine (1) what right has been violated, and (2) whether that right was “clearly established” at the time of the incident. Saucier v.

Kirkham v. Whatcom County

District Court, W.D. Washington · Sep 9, 2025

Qualified Immunity 8 County Defendants also assert Plaintiff’s claim must be dismissed because they are 9 entitled to qualified immunity. … To begin, qualified immunity is a defense to liability only for 10 those sued in their individual capacities under § 1983.