Case law

(PC) Rico v. Ducart

District Court, E.D. California · Feb 6, 2020

Qualified Immunity 4 Government officials enjoy qualified immunity from civil damages unless their conduct 5 violates clearly established statutory or constitutional rights … immunity where their conduct did not violate clearly 5 | established law.

Hernandez v. County of Santa Clara

District Court, N.D. California · Dec 8, 2020

was clearly established at the time of the 11 alleged misconduct.” … 6 risk that [detainee] would imminently attempt suicide”). 7 Plaintiff argues that qualified immunity does not apply in this case because “custodial 8 safety” is a “clearly established right,”

Wallisa v. City of Hesparia

369 F. Supp. 3d 990 · District Court, C.D. California · Mar 20, 2019

"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 person … The qualified immunity analysis involves two distinct steps, determining: (1) whether the facts alleged by a plaintiff make out a violation of a constitutional right; and (2) if so, whether the right was "clearly established

(PC) Caruso v. Johnson

District Court, E.D. California · Mar 25, 2020

16  1 Legal Standard 2 Qualified immunity applies when an official's conduct does not violate clearly established 3 statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known. … City of Roseville, 882 F.3d 843, 856-57 (9th Cir. 2018) (noting that Ninth Circuit 15 precedent is sufficient to meet the “clearly established” prong of qualified immunity).

(PC) Edwards v. Swarthout

District Court, E.D. California · Apr 25, 2024

Defendant argues, third, he is entitled to qualified 15 immunity because it was not clearly established in 2010 that a modified program based partly … City of Roseville, 9 882 F.3d 843, 856-57 (9th Cir. 2018) (holding that Ninth Circuit precedent is sufficient to meet 10 the “clearly established” prong of qualified immunity).

Rutledge v. Hatton

District Court, N.D. California · Oct 2, 2020

To determine whether an 15 officer is entitled to qualified immunity, the Court must consider whether (1) the officer’s conduct 16 violated a constitutional right, and (2) that right was clearly established at the time … Appx. 415, 418 (9th Cir. 27 2002) (denying qualified immunity because it is clearly established that refusing requests from a 1 indifference to medical needs).

(PC) Hafiz v. Yates

District Court, E.D. California · Apr 16, 2020

Hines, 914 F.3d at 1230. 1 Ninth Circuit, like the courts below, proceeded “straight to the second prong of the qualified 2 immunity analysis: whether a right to not face a heightened risk was ‘clearly established’ … Katz, 533 U.S. 4 194, 201 (2001) (establishing the two-part inquiry for qualified immunity: (1) whether the 5 alleged facts violate the Constitution, and (2) if so, whether the constitutional right at issue was 6 clearly

(PC) Petillo v. Jasso

District Court, E.D. California · Jan 24, 2023

If the law 18 did not put the officer on notice that his conduct would be clearly unlawful, summary judgment 19 based on qualified immunity is appropriate. … Willden, 26 678 F.3d 991, 1000 (9th Cir. 2012) (qualified immunity analysis requiring (1) determining the 27 contours of the clearly established right at the time of the challenged conduct and (2) examining 1

Jones v. County of Tulare, California

District Court, E.D. California · Jun 20, 2023

In other words, a “public official is entitled to qualified 9 immunity unless (1) ‘the facts . . . show that the official’s conduct violated a constitutional right;’ 10 and (2) the right at issue ‘was clearly established … Granting summary judgment on the ground of qualified immunity 4 is “improper if, under the plaintiff's version of the facts, and in light of the clearly established law, 5 a reasonable officer could not have believed

Matthews v. Foss

District Court, N.D. California · Aug 6, 2024

Saucier, 25 533 U.S. at 202. 26 A court considering a claim of qualified immunity must determine whether the 1 was clearly established such that it would … , 533 U.S. at 194); Henry A., 678 F.3d at 1000 (qualified immunity analysis 6 requiring (1) determining the contours of the clearly established right at the time of the 7 challenged conduct and (2) examining whether

Santor v. Laster

District Court, E.D. California · Aug 25, 2020

Qualified Immunity 2 Qualified immunity applies when an official’s conduct does not violate clearly established 3 statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known. White v. … City of Roseville, 882 F.3d 843, 856-57 (9th Cir. 2018) (noting that Ninth Circuit precedent is 15 sufficient to meet the “clearly established” prong of qualified immunity).

Silverman v. Lane

District Court, N.D. California · Jun 30, 2020

No. 75 at 17. 25 The defense of qualified immunity protects “government officials . . . from liability 26 for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established … Furthermore, Ninth Circuit 15 precedent regarding the use of tasers indicates that qualified immunity protects officers 16 who were reasonably mistaken in their use based on the lack of a clearly established right.

Collins v. County of Alameda

District Court, N.D. California · May 3, 2021

Abbey, 263 F.3d 1070, 1074-75 8 (9th Cir. 2001) (in discussing qualified immunity, noting that “there is a clearly established 9 constitutional due process right not to be subjected to criminal charges on the basis … (if this was a prosecutorial decision) or at least qualified immunity (e.g., if she did not know the 15 full circumstances related to the second photo lineup).

Grigorescu v. Board of Trustees of the San Mateo County Community College District

District Court, N.D. California · May 24, 2024

“When the defendants are public officials asserting a qualified immunity 18 defense and the appealed issue is whether a given set of facts establishes that defendants violated 19 clearly established law,” the order … The 9 Ninth Circuit denied the principal qualified immunity, stating that the plaintiff’s “right to express 10 political views, even as a public school teacher, is clearly established.

Lees v. CDCR/SVSP-LVN Singsong

District Court, N.D. California · Sep 29, 2022

To determine whether an 1 violated a constitutional right, and (2) that right was clearly established at the time of the incident. 2 Pearson, 555 U.S. at 232. … City of Anaheim, 11 343 F.3d 1052, 1061 (9th Cir. 2003) (denying qualified immunity because it is clearly established 12 that crushing an arrestee on ground despite his repeated cries for air and despite fact that his

Timothy Ryan v. Brant Putnam

District Court, C.D. California · Mar 21, 2022

“Qualified immunity is applicable unless the official’s conduct violated a clearly established constitutional right.” Pearson, 555 U.S. at 232. 1. … Defendants also argue that “|t|he absence of clearly established law on the temporal nexus issue |] entitles Drs. de Virgilio and Lewis to qualified immunity.” Mot. at 41-42.

(PC) Shepard v. Borum

District Court, E.D. California · Jul 13, 2021

No. 67 23 at 24). 24 Qualified immunity shields government officials from money damages unless their 25 conduct violated “clearly established statutory … Rowland, 65 F.3d 802, 806 & n.4 (9th Cir. 1995) (“The 20 prohibition against retaliatory punishment [for filing prison grievances] is ‘clearly established 21 law’ in the Ninth Circuit, for qualified immunity purposes.

Reynolds v. California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation

District Court, N.D. California · Nov 12, 2019

clearly established statutory or constitutional rights 1 The doctrine of qualified immunity attempts to balance two important and sometimes competing 2 interests: “the need to hold public officials accountable when … 14 spores—was not clearly established at the time”); Horton v.

Oxley v. Contra Costa County Sheriff Department

District Court, N.D. California · Jan 31, 2025

Hughes, 584 U.S. 100, 105 16 (2018) (finding officer entitled to qualified immunity against an excessive force claim 17 because there was no clearly established law by which any competent officer would have 18 known … Defendants assert that 17 Defendant Jones is entitled to qualified immunity based on the undisputed facts and the 18 absence of any controlling authority clearly establishing that his conduct was unlawful. 19 Id

(PC) Dawson v. Lynch

District Court, E.D. California · Aug 19, 2022

It is unclear from the allegations 19 that plaintiff qualifies for a medical order for single-cell status and, regardless, the complaint 20 establishes that custody staff has determined that plaintiff qualifies for single-cell … Robinson, 817 F.3d 1162, 1169 (9th Cir. 2016) (statutory 27 language permits sua sponte, pre-service dismissal on grounds of qualified immunity as well as 28 absolute immunity).