Case law

Zawacky v. County of Clark

District Court, W.D. Washington · May 10, 2024

Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity as a matter of law 11 if, when the facts are viewed in the light most favorable to the plaintiffs, “they violated no clearly 12 established constitutional right. … The Orn court also found 11 that the officer was not entitled to qualified immunity because at the time of the shooting in 2011, 12 it was clearly established that “an officer lacks an objectively reasonable basis for

Webb v. City of Vancouver

District Court, W.D. Washington · Nov 19, 2020

Qualified Immunity 10 Defendants in a § 1983 action enjoy qualified immunity from damages for civil 11 liability as long as their conduct does not violate clearly established … Moreover, Defendants assert 8 qualified immunity as to each claim and Webb has the burden to cite precedent that 9 clearly establishes a violation in the circumstances he alleges. Tarabochia, 766 F.3d at 10 1125.

Alem v. Diaz

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

Similarly, courts may dismiss based on qualified immunity under § 1915(e)(2)(B)(iii) 4 “if it is clear from the complaint that the plaintiff can present no evidence that could overcome a 5 defense of qualified immunity … First, Plaintiff’s complaint fails to demonstrate how the 16 conduct at issue violated clearly established law—a requirement to defeat a police officer’s 17 qualified immunity. See Wood v.

Perrigoue v. Ivey

District Court, W.D. Washington · Sep 10, 2025

Gates, 947 F.2d 1418, 1420 12 (9th Cir. 1991).3 In addition, under the qualified immunity doctrine, government officials4 are 13 barred from civil liability when their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory … immunity.

St Marie v. Jefferson County

District Court, W.D. Washington · Aug 25, 2023

was ‘clearly established at the time of 16 the violation.’” … proceeding, 19 Macintyre is entitled to qualified immunity. 20 Even assuming the absence of qualified immunity, limiting communications between a 21 prosecutor and a defense attorney

Baker v. O'Reilly

District Court, W.D. Washington · May 9, 2024

Qualified Immunity 8 Defendants fail to identify any manifest error in the Court’s determination that they are 9 not entitled to qualified immunity. … “Put simply, qualified immunity protects ‘all but the plainly incompetent 18 or those who knowingly violate the law.’” Mullenix, 577 U.S. at 12 (quoting Malley v.

Estate of Wasilchen v. Gohrman

870 F. Supp. 2d 1115 · District Court, W.D. Washington · Apr 25, 2012

Qualified immunity protects government officials from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights about which a reasonable person would have … The court, therefore, does not reach the second step in the qualified immunity analysis, a.

Baumgardner v. Town of Ruston

712 F. Supp. 2d 1180 · District Court, W.D. Washington · Apr 28, 2010

immunity. … a constitutional violation occurred and then whether if there was a violation whether the rights were clearly established) (internal citations omitted).

Henry v. Komarovsky

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

Thus, Officer 8 Komarovsky is entitled to qualified immunity. 9 E. Qualified immunity protects Officer Komarovsky from a judicial deception claim. 10 To the extent Mr. … “If probable cause remains after 4 amendment, then no constitutional error has occurred” and qualified immunity applies.

Vick v. Hernandez

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

immunity because any 8 violation was not clearly established. … law, and it is not a clearly established 11 violation as a matter of law.

Parent v. Langdan

District Court, W.D. Washington · Nov 29, 2023

The plaintiff must show that officials violated 4 a constitutional right and that this right was “clearly established.” Id. A court may 5 consider the two prongs in whatever order it chooses. Pearson v. … Accordingly, 17 the Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity because the first prong of the qualified 18 immunity test is not satisfied.  19 III.

Wilson v. Wakeman

District Court, W.D. Washington · Mar 4, 2025

1 Under the qualified immunity doctrine, “government officials performing discretionary 2 functions generally are shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not 3 violate clearly established … Beto, 405 U.S. 319, 323 (1972). 5 However, the United States Supreme Court has made clear that the test of “clearly established 6 law” is not to be applied at this level of generality for the purpose of a qualified immunity

Skokomish Indian Tribe v. Goldmark

994 F. Supp. 2d 1168 · District Court, W.D. Washington · Jan 13, 2014

Goldmark as barred by Eleventh Amendment sovereign immunity. C. … 936 (1968) (“We read the Rule’s third criterion, whether the judgment issued in the absence of the nonjoined person will be ‘adequate,’ to refer to this public stake in settling disputes by wholes, whenever possible, for clearly

Taylor v. Vangesen

District Court, W.D. Washington · Oct 8, 2019

Qualified Immunity 14 “Government officials performing discretionary functions enjoy qualified 15 immunity from civil damages so long as their conduct does not violate … Ohio State Highway 2 Patrol, 308 F.3d 523, 542 (2002) (clearly established in 1992 that the Constitution 3 prohibits racial targeting in law enforcement investigations), and the clearly-established 4 right under the

Fabian v. King County

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

State officials 27 are entitled to qualified immunity unless he or she violated clearly established law of which a 28 … Qualified immunity is a judicially-crafted protection for public officials who must 3 exercise judgment in their official duties.

McClain

District Court, W.D. Washington · Jun 2, 2026

To sue a state 13 officer for money damages, a plaintiff must plead facts sufficient to overcome what is known as 14 “qualified immunity,” which protects government officials “from liability for civil damages 15 … insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of 16 which a reasonable person would have known.”

Dold v. Snohomish County

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

The Court previously concluded that the deputies were entitled to qualified immunity: 9 Even if the deputies’ conduct violated the Fourth Amendment, it was not clearly established that 10 warrantless entry under these … Schwartz, The Case Against Qualified Immunity, 93 Notre Dame L. 11 Rev. 1797 (2018); William Baude, Is Qualified Immunity Unlawful?, 106 Cal. L.

Garcia v. Island County

District Court, W.D. Washington · Sep 2, 2022

of qualified 4 immunity. … “Clearly Established” Rights 17 To be “clearly established,” the contours of the alleged constitutional right must 18 simply be “sufficiently clear that a reasonable official would

Clauson v. Thurston County

District Court, W.D. Washington · Dec 4, 2023

Defendants in a § 1983 action are entitled to 9 qualified immunity from damages for civil liability if their conduct does not violate clearly 10 established federal statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable … taken in the light most 20 favorable to the party asserting the injury; and (2) whether, if so, the conduct violated clearly 21 established law when viewed in the specific context of the case.

International Franchise Ass'n v. City of Seattle

97 F. Supp. 3d 1256 · District Court, W.D. Washington · Mar 17, 2015

If they offer a qualifying health plan, they will be given four years to implement the new law. … If there is a privilege or immunity, the second step is to determine whether the legislature had a “reasonable ground” for granting the privilege or immunity. Id. 1. Does the Ordinance Involve a Privilege or Immunity?