Case law

Baker v. City of Seatac

994 F. Supp. 2d 1148 · District Court, W.D. Washington · Jan 13, 2014

Qualified Immunity The principles of qualified immunity “shield an officer from personal liability when an officer reasonably believes that his or her conduct complies with the law.” Pearson v. … The Supreme Court has established a two-step sequence for resolving government official’s qualified immunity claims. Saucier v. Katz, 533 U.S. 194 , 200, 121 S.Ct. 2151 , 150 L.Ed.2d 272 (2001).

Fair v. King County

District Court, W.D. Washington · Jul 16, 2025

He also points out 22 that Baird waived appellate review of the “clearly established” prong of the qualified immunity 23 analysis by failing to address this issue in his motion for summary judgment. … established” prong of the qualified immunity analysis as to Fair’s judicial 24 deception claim.

Strode

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

to establish qualified immunity generally must often be shown by 18 matters outside the complaint.”); Chang v. … conduct violated a clearly established constitutional right.

Davis v. Clark County

966 F. Supp. 2d 1106 · District Court, W.D. Washington · Aug 20, 2013

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 … The motion for qualified immunity should be denied. 3.

Farnsworth v. Armstrong

District Court, W.D. Washington · Jun 6, 2023

Because he 10 failed to meet his burden, the Court granted qualified immunity for Nee. 11 In his Motion for Reconsideration, Farnsworth argues that Nee violated his clearly 12 established constitutional rights … established.”

Bromm

District Court, W.D. Washington · Sep 14, 2026

entitlement 18 to qualified immunity because he did not produce the letter itself. … The Ninth Circuit has 4 noted that “the law regarding [claims implicating Pickering] will rarely, if ever, be 5 sufficiently ‘clearly established’ to preclude qualified immunity.” Id. at 847.

Hanson v. Ferguson

District Court, W.D. Washington · May 19, 2025

immunity because Plaintiffs fail to show that any individual Defendant 7 violated a clearly established right. … A court “may begin the qualified immunity analysis by 14 considering whether there is a violation of clearly established law without determining whether a 15 constitutional violation occurred.” Krainski v.

Farnsworth v. Armstrong

District Court, W.D. Washington · Mar 23, 2023

and (2) the unlawfulness of their conduct was 12 ‘clearly established at the time.’” … It finds that it has not. 21 “For the second step in the qualified immunity analysis – whether the constitutional right 22 was clearly established at the time of the conduct – the critical question

Shakir

District Court, W.D. Washington · May 12, 2026

immunity doctrine shields 4 government officials performing discretionary functions “from liability for civil damages 5 insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional 6 rights … A two-part test resolves claims of qualified immunity 8 by determining whether plaintiffs have alleged facts that “make out a violation of a 9 constitutional right,” and if so, whether the “right at issue was ‘clearly

Foss v. King County

District Court, W.D. Washington · May 23, 2024

Section 1983 First Amendment Retaliation Claims & Qualified Immunity 13 Defendants Alspach and Henderson—who, as law enforcement officers, investigated 14 allegations against Plaintiff—say that the doctrine of qualified … Thus, the Court may determine that there is qualified immunity on the 2 “clearly established” prong without deciding whether a constitutional violation occurred. 3 This second prong of the qualified immunity analysis

Florer v. Bales-Johnson

752 F. Supp. 2d 1185 · District Court, W.D. Washington · Oct 27, 2010

immunity. … Qualified Immunity Defendants contend that they are entitled to qualified immunity as to Mr. Florer’s constitutional claims.

Ballou v. McElvain

District Court, W.D. Washington · Aug 3, 2022

immunity on that claim” (which would imply that the viability of such a claim is clearly 8 established). … A two-part test resolves claims 19 of qualified immunity by determining whether plaintiff has alleged facts that “make out a 20 violation of a constitutional right[,]” and if so, whether the “right at issue was ‘clearly

Foss v. King County

District Court, W.D. Washington · May 23, 2024

Section 1983 First Amendment Retaliation Claims & Qualified Immunity 13 Defendants Alspach and Henderson—who, as law enforcement officers, investigated 14 allegations against Plaintiff—say that the doctrine of qualified … Thus, the Court may determine that there is qualified immunity on the 2 “clearly established” prong without deciding whether a constitutional violation occurred. 3 This second prong of the qualified immunity analysis

Millerd

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

(MJP at 21–22.) 8 The court exercises its discretion to begin with prong two of the qualified 9 immunity framework—whether the asserted substantive due process right was clearly 10 established in August 2023. … Because the court has determined that those claims fail as a matter of law under 1 the clearly established prong of the qualified immunity framework, no additional factual 2 allegations could overcome the individuals’

FMC TECHNOLOGIES, INC. v. Edwards

464 F. Supp. 2d 1063 · District Court, W.D. Washington · Nov 27, 2006

The defamation context clearly qualifies “all liability.” 2 Similarly, while the Dexter decision by the Washington Court of Appeals came after the Washington Supreme Court’s extension of the litigation privilege to contexts … Were we able lo invoke only clearly established state law, litigants seeking to protect their rights in federal courts by availing themselves of our diversity jurisdiction would face an inhospitable forum for claims not identical

Colombo v. Washington Department of Natural Resources

District Court, W.D. Washington · May 19, 2025

A court “may begin the qualified immunity analysis by 12 considering whether there is a violation of clearly established law without determining whether a 13 constitutional violation occurred.” Krainski v. … “To determine whether a constitutional right 15 has been clearly established for qualified immunity purposes,” the court “must survey the legal 16 landscape and examine those cases that are most like the instant case

Bennett

District Court, W.D. Washington · Jan 7, 2026

20 immunity because Plaintiffs fail to show that any individual Defendant violated a clearly 21 established right. … A court “may 1 2 begin the qualified immunity analysis by considering whether there is a violation of clearly 3 established law without determining

Ryan v. Hansen

District Court, W.D. Washington · Aug 4, 2020

force under the circumstances was 6 clearly established in 2017. … Defendant’s Objection 15 Defendant Hansen contends that he is entitled to qualified immunity because it was not 16 “clearly established” at the time of the incident that

Ejonga v. Watanabe

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

For purposes of qualified immunity, “[a] right is clearly established when it is sufficiently 9 clear that every reasonable official would have understood that what he is doing violates that 10 right.” … Gregoire, 872 17 F.3d 1031, 1034 (9th Cir. 2017) as clearly established law.

Fox v. Fort

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

No. 1 at 7.) 9 Fort argues that he is entitled to qualified immunity because he did not violate any clearly 10 established right. (Dkt. No. 20 at 16.) … Fort, therefore, is 16 entitled to qualified immunity because his actions did not violate a clearly established right. 17 IV.