Case 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.

Adamson

District Court, W.D. Washington · May 6, 2026

,” 18 and (2) “whether the right in question was clearly established at the time of the violation.” … Although the qualified immunity doctrine does not 22 “require a case directly on point” to show that a right is clearly established, “existing precedent 23 must have placed the statutory or constitutional question

Ewalan v. Schreiber

District Court, W.D. Washington · Jun 17, 2024

Ewalan objected to the proposed 6 instruction, correctly arguing that it would have improperly submitted the “clearly 7 established” prong of qualified immunity to the jury. (Id. at 65.) … To the contrary, because Defendants 3 properly pled and preserved their qualified immunity defense, Mr. Ewalan then bore the 4 burden to prove the violation of a clearly established right. See Mason v.

Neaman v. Washington State Department of Corrections

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

‘clearly established’ at the time of defendant’s alleged misconduct.” … The “clearly established” standard requires that legal principles clearly prohibit 18 the officer’s conduct in the particular circumstances before him.

Stenson v. King County

District Court, W.D. Washington · Apr 22, 2024

Legal Standard 7 Qualified immunity protects government officials “from liability for civil damages 8 insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established … No Qualified Immunity for Excessive Force Claim 13 The Parties dispute whether the law is clearly established that Leenstra acted in violation 14 of the Fourth Amendment by shooting Sarrett without

Rehn

District Court, W.D. Washington · Oct 28, 2025

of a constitutional right, or no violation 17 of a right that is clearly established in law.” … Defendants argue “the Court and Plaintiff 5 defined the breadth of the Fourth Amendment right at issue too broadly” and there is no 6 clearly established law that prohibited the Officer Defendants’ entry into Ms.

Johnston v. Howard

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

The Qualified Immunity Standard 18 A government official is entitled to qualified immunity from a claim for damages unless 19 the plaintiff raises a genuine issue of fact showing … To defeat the defense of qualified immunity, the 1 plaintiff bears the burden of proving that “the [officers’] specific conduct violated clearly 2 established federal law” by “point[ing] to prior case law that articulates

Kane

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

When 23 defendants assert qualified immunity in a motion to dismiss under Fed. R. Civ. … : (1) 6 defendant’s conduct violated a constitutional right; and (2) the right was clearly 7 established.

Tam v. United States

905 F. Supp. 2d 1221 · District Court, W.D. Washington · Oct 26, 2012

Not only is this rule grounded in a long-established common law tradition, it is also justified by modern policy considerations: The modern policy basis justifying sovereign immunity from suit has three principal themes. … CONCLUSION The Government has carried its burden to establish that it has sovereign immunity under the discretionary function exception to the FTCA.

Dodge v. Evergreen School District

District Court, W.D. Washington · Jun 25, 2021

Dodge’s First Amendment claim 8 failed because his right to wear his MAGA hat was not so “clearly established” to defeat 9 qualified immunity. (See id.) … First, Defendants 18 make much of the fact that claims involving the Pickering test “will rarely, if ever, be 19 sufficiently ‘clearly established’ to preclude qualified immunity.”

Rodarte v. Skagit County

District Court, W.D. Washington · Dec 30, 2021

that right was clearly established at the time of 25 the incident.” … show [that] the [defendants'] conduct violated a constitutional right’ and (2) ‘the right 10 was clearly established’ at the time of the alleged violation.”)

DIST. NO. 1, PAC. COAST, ETC. v. Ward

505 F. Supp. 98 · District Court, W.D. Washington · Jan 6, 1981

There is no question but that they are properly licensed and otherwise qualified for their jobs. … In this case, AS 19.65.010 clearly has the effect of discriminating in favor of ferry employees who reside in Alaska.

McClain

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

The second step of the qualified immunity analysis 18 provides that defendants are entitled to qualified immunity if their conduct “does not 19 violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a … Defendant makes no substantive argument with respect to 15 the second prong of the qualified immunity — that the constitutional right was not clearly 16 established.

Santiago v. Gage

District Court, W.D. Washington · Nov 15, 2019

. # 52, but the Court need only analyze qualified immunity. 14 The goal of qualified immunity is to shield public officials from civil damages for 15 reasonable mistakes to ensure that the specter of liability … their conduct 24 1 was clearly established at the time.”

Benshoof v. Ferguson

District Court, W.D. Washington · Jul 12, 2024

immunity or qualified immunity as an 12 attorney representing governmental actors, Seattle Public Schools and Narver. … Plaintiff has not identified any 11 cases demonstrating that the law was clearly established as to any of the alleged constitutional 12. || Violations.

Gossett v. Pierce County

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

QUALIFIED IMMUNITY 21 “[Q]ualified immunity protects government officials ‘from liability for civil damages 22 insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established … “Law is ‘clearly established’ for the purposes of 18 qualified immunity if every reasonable official would have understood that what he is doing 19 violates the right at issue.” Wilk v.

United States v. Washington

66 F.R.D. 477 · District Court, W.D. Washington · Sep 16, 1974

The various motions of the tribal plaintiffs do not clearly establish whether these motions are intended to be against defendant Washington Reef Net Owners Association. … A reading of the opinion does not clearly establish whether the defendant state officers were sued in their official capacity, but in any event, the court ordered reapportionment and awarded attorneys’ fees, relying not on

Chang v. Vanderwielen

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

To determine whether qualified 21 immunity applies, the Court asks “whether (1) the plaintiff has plausibly alleged a violation of a 22 constitutional right, and (2) the constitutional right was ‘clearly established’ … .’”) 19 “Qualified immunity attaches when an official’s conduct does not violate clearly 20 established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” 21 Villegas v.

Wright v. State of Washington

District Court, W.D. Washington · May 27, 2025

He also argued that Defendants were not 23 entitled to qualified immunity because their conduct violated a clearly established constitutional right. … A 6 public official performing a discretionary function enjoys qualified immunity in a civil action for 7 damages, provided his or her conduct does not violate clearly established federal statutory or 8 constitutional

Baer v. Abel

648 F. Supp. 69 · District Court, W.D. Washington · Mar 21, 1986

In opposition, plaintiffs contend that Congress waived FSLIC’s sovereign immunity when it allowed FSLIC to sue or be sued, 12 U.S.C. § 1725 , and concurrently established federal court jurisdiction over actions to which FSLIC … However, this case clearly falls within the rationale of Fahey v.