Case law

(PS) Machado v. Lizarraga

District Court, E.D. California · Jul 9, 2020

Qualified Immunity 26 Lastly, defendants argue that they are immune from liability under the doctrine of 27 qualified immunity. … Cal. 2010) (denying to dismiss complaint on 9 qualified immunity grounds because it could not be clearly determined on the face of complaint, 10 but declaring that the ground could be raised through summary judgment).

Willson v. Cagle

711 F. Supp. 1521 · District Court, N.D. California · Sep 22, 1988

clearly established constitutional rights. … However, the Harlow opinion also clearly states that qualified immunity is available only to "government officials performing discretionary functions." Id.

Shelley v. County of San Joaquin

954 F. Supp. 2d 999 · District Court, E.D. California · Jun 27, 2013

of qualified immunity. … Qualified Immunity “The doctrine of 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

Alicia T. v. County of Los Angeles

222 Cal. App. 3d 869 · California Court of Appeal · Jul 23, 1990

The County insists the law clearly provides absolute immunity for the conduct in issue here. “Qualified or ‘good faith’ immunity is an affirmative defense that must be pleaded by a defendant official. [Citation.]” … “Qualified immunity shields only that conduct not violative of clearly established constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.

Estate of Adkins , by and through Adkins v. County of San Diego

384 F. Supp. 3d 1195 · District Court, S.D. California · Jun 7, 2019

Qualified Immunity Defendants argue that officers Vianzon and Perine are entitled to qualified immunity. (Doc. No. 52-1 at 14-17.) Plaintiff argues that the officers' actions violated clearly established law. (Doc. … Moreover, with respect to Beaver , the Court may "look to whatever decisional law is available to ascertain whether the law is clearly established for qualified immunity purposes." Boyd v.

Loynachan v. Smiley

District Court, E.D. California · Feb 7, 2024

Qualified immunity is a 25 question of law to be decided by the court. … Clearly Established Right 5 Still, qualified immunity applies if the violated 6 constitutional right was not clearly established.

Hernandez v. Gates

100 F. Supp. 2d 1209 · District Court, C.D. California · Jun 20, 2000

QUALIFIED IMMUNITY A. … The City Council defendants claim that there is no clearly established law indicating that their actions were unlawful, and that they therefore have qualified immunity from suit in this case.

Norwood v. Woodford

583 F. Supp. 2d 1200 · District Court, S.D. California · Sep 5, 2008

The defense of 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 … “If the law did not put the officer on notice that his conduct would be clearly unlawful,” a finding of qualified immunity is appropriate, as “qualified immunity protects ‘all but the plainly incompetent or those who knowingly

(PC) Perez v. Smith

District Court, E.D. California · Oct 4, 2022

Qualified Immunity 20 The defense of qualified immunity protects “government officials ... from liability for 21 civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate … based on qualified immunity is appropriate.

Brown v. Grove

647 F. Supp. 2d 1178 · District Court, C.D. California · Jul 16, 2009

Defendants’ Qualified Immunity Defense Is Denied Defendants have moved to dismiss the Complaint in its entirety on the ground that they are entitled to qualified immunity because they did not violate clearly established federal … To be protected under qualified immunity, a government employee must show that the right the plaintiff complains of was not clearly established at the time the defendants acted or, assuming that it was clearly established

Hawkins v. Baca

114 F. Supp. 2d 987 · District Court, C.D. California · Sep 22, 2000

Public officials sued under § 1983 are entitled to qualified immunity if: (1) the constitutional right they allegedly violated was not clearly established at the time of the violation; or (2) a reasonable official would have … The question was whether that policy violated clearly established law.

Franklin v. Fox

107 F. Supp. 2d 1154 · District Court, N.D. California · Jul 17, 2000

THE QUALIFIED IMMUNITY MOTIONS Under the doctrine of qualified immunity, government officials performing discretionary functions are shielded from liability for civil damages if “their conduct does not violate clearly established … “Determining whether a public official is entitled to qualified immunity ‘requires a two-part inquiry: (1) Was the law governing the state official’s conduct clearly established?

Rabinovitz v. City of L. A.

287 F. Supp. 3d 933 · District Court, C.D. California · Mar 2, 2018

Qualified immunity "shields officials from civil liability so long as their conduct 'does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.' " Mullenix v. … Qualified Immunity Defendants' qualified immunity defense fails to bar the First Amendment claim.

(PC) Reed v. Racklin

District Court, E.D. California · Sep 30, 2019

Qualified Immunity 4 Qualified immunity shields government actors from civil liability under 42 U.S.C. 1983 if 5 “their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory … Prunty, 108 F.3d 251, 14 254-55 (9th Cir. 1997) (in qualified immunity context, finding no clearly established right to be 15 free from feigned karate chops towards inmate’s body, including groin area).

Zisk v. City of Roseville

56 Cal. App. 3d 41 · California Court of Appeal · Feb 20, 1976

. §§ 1983 and/or 1985) because the city councilmen are not immune from liability thereunder and because the pleadings establish that the councilmen clearly violated established constitutional rights of plaintiffs. … The court found them immune from liability, stating: “[I]n varying scope, a qualified immunity is available to officers of the executive branch of government, the variation being dependent upon the scope of discretion and

(PC) McNeil v. Toor

District Court, E.D. California · Jan 2, 2024

Qualified Immunity 28 In the alternative, Defendants assert they are entitled to qualified immunity because there 1 is not clearly established case law that provided Defendants … ‘clearly established’ at the time of defendant's alleged 6 misconduct.”

Victoria v. City of San Diego

326 F. Supp. 3d 1003 · District Court, S.D. California · Sep 5, 2018

In suits under § 1983, qualified immunity "shields government officials from civil damages liability unless the official violated a statutory or constitutional right that was clearly established at the time of the challenged … In general, the doctrine of 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

Meas v. City and County of San Francisco

681 F. Supp. 2d 1128 · District Court, N.D. California · Feb 9, 2010

A court considering a claim of qualified immunity must determine whether the plaintiff has alleged the deprivation of an actual constitutional right and whether such right was clearly established such that it would be clear … Here, defendants argue that the officers are entitled to qualified immunity as to the false arrest and malicious prosecution claims because none of their actions violated clearly established law.

Nicole M. Ex Rel. Jacqueline M. v. Martinez Unified School District

964 F. Supp. 1369 · District Court, N.D. California · Apr 15, 1997

Analysis of Qualified Immunity Defense 1. Whether the Law at the Time of Guzman’s Alleged Acts and Omissions Was Clearly Established a. … The investigator asserted a qualified immunity defense, maintaining that the law did not clearly establish that his actions violated Eastwood’s right to privacy.

Masters v. San Bernardino County Employees Retirement Ass'n

32 Cal. App. 4th 30 · California Court of Appeal · Jan 19, 1995

That is, while a public employee’s immunity is qualified, the immunity of a public entity for misrepresentation by its employee, whether intentional or negligent, is absolute. (Gov. Code, § 818.8; see Harshbarger v. … case to case, of the requisite qualifying facts.