Case law

Beaver v. City of Federal Way

507 F. Supp. 2d 1137 · District Court, W.D. Washington · Aug 31, 2007

Qualified immunity protects § 1983 defendants from liability for civil damages if their conduct does not violate a clearly established constitutional or statutory *1148 right of which a reasonable person would have known. … Under the second prong of Saucier, the officers are entitled to qualified immunity.

Quinlan v. City of Seattle

District Court, W.D. Washington · Mar 27, 2024

. § 1983 because the officers should have done more to find and notify him about the impoundment would be 15 precluded by qualified immunity jurisprudence. See Hope v. … Pelzer, 536 U.S. 730, 739 (2002) (an individual defendant is entitled to qualified immunity if the 16 constitutional right allegedly violated was not “clearly established” at the time of the events at

Ray v. Washington State Department of Health and Human Services

District Court, W.D. Washington · Jul 17, 2025

qualified immunity. … Bd. of Regents of Nevada Sys. of Higher Educ., 616 20 F.3d 963, 969 (9th Cir. 2010) (“[W]e may begin the qualified immunity analysis by considering 21 whether there is a violation of clearly established law without

Knapp v. Goudschaal

District Court, W.D. Washington · Aug 11, 2025

employees are not entitled to qualified immunity on judicial 5 deception claims.” … Callahan, 555 U.S. 223, 236 (2009) (holding that courts 21 have discretion to consider the two prongs of qualified immunity, whether a constitutional right 22 was violated and whether that right was clearly established

Sims v. City of Seattle

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

Defendants have raised a viable issue regarding the manner in which the Court analyzed 19 qualified immunity. See Cunningham v. … Fry, 873 F.3d 817, 821 (9th Cir. 2017) (“[T]he 4 ‘clearly established’ inquiry is a question of law that only a judge can decide.”).

Gray v. Washington State Department of Transportation

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

Plaintiffs must assert that the Individual 9 Defendants violated a clearly established federal right in order to surmount their qualified 10 immunity defense. See Lindsey v. … Shalmy, 29 F.3d 1382, 1384 (9th Cir. 1994) (noting that the 11 doctrine of qualified immunity does not apply to “clearly established federal rights.”) (emphasis 12 added).

Wilcox v. Batiste

360 F. Supp. 3d 1112 · District Court, E.D. Washington · Dec 21, 2018

Qualified Immunity The parties also dispute whether Chief Batiste is entitled to qualified immunity from monetary damages. 3 ECF No. 35 at 9; ECF No. 56 at 14. … The Court begins by assessing whether the right that Chief Batiste is alleged to have violated is clearly established. *1124 A right from a federal statute or the constitution is clearly established when a reasonable official

Coleman v. Merritt

District Court, W.D. Washington · Apr 22, 2025

The second step of the qualified immunity analysis provides that defendants are 22 entitled to qualified immunity if their conduct “does not violate clearly established statutory or 23 constitutional rights of which a … Plaintiff bears the burden of proving that the right allegedly violated 2 was clearly established at the time of the violation; if the plaintiff meets this burden, then the 3 defendant bears the burden of establishing

Edmiston v. City Of Port Angeles

360 F. Supp. 3d 1147 · District Court, W.D. Washington · Dec 21, 2018

Therefore, in the absence of authority demonstrating that the right was clearly established, Officer Brusseau is entitled to qualified immunity. … Nor can Edmiston negate that Officer Brusseau is entitled to qualified immunity on the search issue, if a search indeed occurred, in the absence of clearly established law.

Thomas v. Cannon

289 F. Supp. 3d 1182 · District Court, W.D. Washington · Jan 30, 2018

DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR QUALIFIED IMMUNITY ...1213 A. Waiver...1213 1. Markert, Wiley, Cannon...1213 2. Zaro...1214 B. Constitutional Violation...1215 C. Clearly Established Law...1217 1. … The Court nonetheless affirmed qualified immunity for the officers because it recognized this rule was not clearly established in 1997 when the flash-bang was used. Id. at 784 .

Smith v. University of Washington Law School

2 F. Supp. 2d 1324 · District Court, W.D. Washington · Apr 22, 1998

In the absence of binding precedent, a court should look to whatever deci-sional law is available to ascertain whether the law is clearly established for qualified immunity purposes, including decisions of state courts, other … The third step in the qualified immunity analysis is to consider whether a reasonable official could have believed the conduct at issue was lawful under clearly established law.

Monetti v. City of Seattle

875 F. Supp. 2d 1221 · District Court, W.D. Washington · Jun 21, 2012

Qualified Immunity Analysis Qualified immunity shields public officials from civil damages for the performance of their discretionary functions. … Even if the constitutional rights of the plaintiff were violated, unless the right is clearly established, the officer is entitled to qualified immunity. Saucier, 533 U.S. at 201, 121 S.Ct. 2151 .

Peltier v. Sacks

328 F. Supp. 3d 1170 · District Court, W.D. Washington · Jul 16, 2018

was not clearly established. 4 Under the qualified immunity doctrine, "government officials performing discretionary functions generally are shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate … A two-part test resolves claims of qualified immunity by determining whether plaintiffs have alleged facts that "make out a violation of a constitutional right," and if so, whether the "right at issue was 'clearly established

Grenning v. Klemme

34 F. Supp. 3d 1144 · District Court, E.D. Washington · Jul 22, 2014

Qualified Immunity “[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 … Harrington would not be entitled to qualified immunity as the right to be free from arbitrary mail searches was clearly established in 2010. (ECF No. 56 at 17-18).

Hearn v. Rhay

68 F.R.D. 574 · District Court, E.D. Washington · Sep 26, 1975

to plaintiff’s burden of proving malice or unreasonable disregard of his clearly established constitutional rights. … Defendants argue that they seek immunity on the narrow basis of the extent of plaintiff’s “clearly established constitutional rights” at the time of the alleged civil rights violations and not on the basis of legal advice

Brawley v. Washington

712 F. Supp. 2d 1208 · District Court, W.D. Washington · May 3, 2010

entitled to qualified immunity. … Plaintiff has shown evidence, if believed, that would demonstrate a violation of her clearly established rights, barring the qualified immunity defense. III.

Carey v. Inslee

364 F. Supp. 3d 1220 · District Court, W.D. Washington · Mar 11, 2019

This does not mean that the subjective good faith defense is coextensive with qualified immunity. … For example, in a situation where a broad constitutional holding may or may not apply to a novel fact pattern, qualified immunity would apply if it was not "clearly established" that the holding extended to the new scenario

Macareno v. Thomas

378 F. Supp. 3d 933 · District Court, W.D. Washington · May 8, 2019

Government officials enjoy qualified immunity from civil damages unless their conduct violates "clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known." Harlow v. … Because Plaintiff's Fourth Amendment right was clearly established, the Court DENIES Defendant Officers' motion for qualified immunity. iii.

Bradford v. City of Seattle

557 F. Supp. 2d 1189 · District Court, W.D. Washington · Apr 4, 2008

A public official who performs a discretionary function enjoys qualified immunity in a civil action for damages, provided that his or her conduct does not violate clearly established federal statutory or constitutional rights … The Supreme Court has established a two-part test for determining whether an official is entitled to qualified immunity.

Nurre v. Whitehead

520 F. Supp. 2d 1222 · District Court, W.D. Washington · Sep 20, 2007

Whitehead to qualified immunity as an individual defendant, for the record, the Court also grants defendant’s motion for summary judgment on qualified immunity for the separate reason that it was not clearly established that … Similarly, the Court concludes that defendant is entitled to qualified immunity on plaintiffs Establishment Clause claim because the Court has been unable to find authority clearly establishing that defendant was acting with