Case law

Stanley v. King County

District Court, W.D. Washington · Aug 8, 2024

In response, Detective Christiansen points to 8 qualified immunity. (See Dkt. … No. 17 at 12–15.) 9 “The doctrine of qualified immunity protects government officials ‘from liability for civil 10 damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory

Taylor v. City of Seattle

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

Qualified Immunity 8 Because qualified immunity is “an immunity from suit rather than a mere defense 9 to liability,” Mitchell v. … Clearly Established Law 4 The principle underlying qualified immunity is that law enforcement officers must 5 have had notice that their conduct was unlawful before they are

Rachauskas

District Court, W.D. Washington · Aug 20, 2026

immunity 12 from Plaintiff’s claims. … established constitutional right and, accordingly, 16 she is not entitled to qualified immunity.”

Thomas v. Pacific County Sheriff's Department

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

immunity. … Qualified Immunity 14 Under the qualified immunity doctrine, “government officials performing 15

Garnica v. Washington Department of Corrections

965 F. Supp. 2d 1250 · District Court, W.D. Washington · Aug 13, 2013

Qualified Immunity Defendants argue that they are entitled to qualified immunity with respect to Mr. Garnica’s claims. … This Court need not address qualified immunity with respect to Mr. Garnica’s claims because, as discussed above, he has not established those alleged violations of constitutional rights.

Myers v. Brooks

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

Government officials enjoy qualified immunity 17 from civil damages unless their conduct violates “clearly established statutory or 18 constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have … In deciding whether qualified immunity applies, the 20 Court must determine: (1) whether the facts alleged show the defendant’s conduct violated 21 a constitutional right; and (2) whether that right was clearly established

Cannata v. Hoag

District Court, W.D. Washington · Jun 14, 2022

Whether Hoag is Entitled to Invoke Qualified Immunity 6 The R&R concluded that Hoag is not entitled to invoke qualified immunity, which … immunity under circumstances similar to this case, finding that 3 || their denial of a nonallergy alternative to the prison-provided toothpaste violated the plaintiff's 4 “clearly established” right to oral hygiene

Joseph v. City of Kent

District Court, W.D. Washington · Feb 4, 2021

right that was “clearly established” at the time of the challenged conduct. 9 Plumhoff, 572 U.S. at 778. … If a constitutional 14 15 violation can be shown, “the court must then determine whether the constitutional right was clearly 16 established

Thomas v. Pacific County Sheriff's Department

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

immunity. … Qualified Immunity 14 Under the qualified immunity doctrine, “government officials performing 15

Mistachkin

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

Qualified immunity applies to all defendants because Mr. … Dkt. 25 at 23-27. 10 Plaintiff argues the individual defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity 11 because there was clearly established law of which a reasonable

Meagher v. King County

District Court, W.D. Washington · Jul 9, 2020

Qualified Immunity 5 The individual Defendants contend that they are entitled to qualified immunity on 6 Mr. … Meagher’s right to be protected from violence from 4 other inmates is clearly established, the only question remaining with respect to qualified 5 immunity is whether the individual Defendants violated Mr.

Dean v. City of Tacoma

District Court, W.D. Washington · Apr 21, 2025

No Qualified Immunity on Excessive Force Claim 17 The Court finds that Defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity on Dean’s 18 excessive force claim. … Legal Standard 20 Qualified immunity protects government officials “from liability for civil damages 21 insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established

Cook

District Court, W.D. Washington · May 28, 2026

See generally Dkt. # 33. 4 Likewise, without a clear violation of federal law, Plaintiff cannot overcome Defendants’ 5 immunity arguments. See, e.g., Pearson v. … Callahan, 555 U.S. 223, 231 (2009) (“The doctrine 6 of qualified immunity protects government officials from liability for civil damages insofar as 7 their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional

Berg v. Bethel School District

District Court, W.D. Washington · Dec 3, 2020

“Government 4 officials performing discretionary functions enjoy qualified immunity from civil damages 5 so long as their conduct does not violate ‘clearly established statutory or constitutional 6 rights of which a … Similarly, though nonbinding precedent, 11 the Northern District of California held that the law was clearly established under Title 12 IX to preclude qualified immunity for a school principal who knew or should have

Saade v. State of Washington Department of Health

District Court, W.D. Washington · Sep 18, 2019

Fenimore allegedly violated was “clearly established” at the time of the 13 alleged violations.1 14 (2) The Clerk is directed to send a copy of this Minute Order … immunity grounds.

Arctic Sole Seafoods v. Gutierrez

622 F. Supp. 2d 1050 · District Court, W.D. Washington · May 19, 2008

The preamble to the proposed rule clearly describes the criteria that Congress established for allowing a person to fish in the Amendment 80 sector under the CRP ( 72 FR 30057 ). … The criteria to participate in the Amendment 80 sector are clearly established in the CRP.

Holmes v. Washington Department of Corrections

District Court, W.D. Washington · Jan 4, 2022

Qualified Immunity 20 “Qualified immunity attaches when an official’s conduct does not violate clearly 21 established statutory or constitutional rights of which … Whether a right has been clearly established 7 depends on precedent.

Anderson, Clayton & Co. v. Washington State Department of Agriculture

402 F. Supp. 1253 · District Court, W.D. Washington · Oct 29, 1975

Ariz.1973). 2 *1256 For the reasons hereinafter delineated, we conclude and hold that ROW 15.40.030, together with its provisions for sanctions, is per se violative of the Plaintiffs’ First Amendment fundamental immunities … S., at p. 2231 of 95 S.Ct., say of the Chrestensen rationale of non-First Amendment protection “to paid commercial advertisements” that: “Our cases, however, clearly establish that speech is not stripped of First Amendment

Carter

District Court, W.D. Washington · Sep 9, 2026

In addition, it is well established that, under the Eleventh 19 Amendment, a nonconsenting State is immune from suits brought in federal courts by its own 20 citizens. See Edelman v. … Waco, 502 U.S. 9, 9–12 (1991) (judicial immunity); Imbler v. 4 Pachtman, 424 U.S. 409, 430–31 (1976) (prosecutorial immunity). 5 “Judges are absolutely immune from damages actions for judicial acts taken

Sims v. City of Lakewood

District Court, W.D. Washington · Jun 20, 2023

Qualified immunity 2 Officer Syler contends he is entitled to qualified immunity. … to the question of Officer 6 Syler’s qualified immunity. 7 C