Case law

County of Butte v. Superior Court

175 Cal. App. 4th 729 · California Court of Appeal · Jul 1, 2009

In those situations, the law clearly contemplates the destruction of the subject marijuana. ...[][] But neither of those circumstances exist here. … The Supreme Court in Mower determined the Act does not afford qualified medical marijuana patients a complete immunity from arrest because of their status as patients.

Olvera v. County of Sacramento

932 F. Supp. 2d 1123 · District Court, E.D. California · Mar 19, 2013

If the court concludes a right is not clearly established, the official is entitled to qualified immunity. Id. at 202, 121 S.Ct. 2151 . … If a right is clearly established, an official is not entitled to qualified immunity unless a • reasonable official would not have known that his conduct violated the clearly established right.

Julian v. Mission Community Hospital

11 Cal. App. 5th 360 · California Court of Appeal · May 2, 2017

Qualified immunity, however, “shields public officers from section 1983 actions unless the officer has violated a clearly established constitutional right” (Mendoza v. … ‘If no constitutional right would have been violated were the allegations established,’ then the qualified immunity inquiry ends. [Citation.]

Robinson v. Cnty. of Shasta

384 F. Supp. 3d 1137 · District Court, E.D. California · May 1, 2019

Turning to the second prong of the qualified immunity analysis, the court notes that clearly established law must be defined with a "high 'degree of specificity.' " District of Columbia v. Wesby , --- U.S. ----, 138 S. … Ultimately, because no controlling authority had yet clearly established as unconstitutional the use of a taser in dart mode, as used by the officer, the officer was entitled to qualified immunity. Id. at 833.

Quigley v. Garden Valley Fire Protection Dist.

249 Cal. Rptr. 3d 548 · California Supreme Court · Jul 15, 2019

The Court of Appeal criticized McMahan’s for failing to distinguish between those sections of the GCA that provide “qualified” immunity and those that provide “absolute” immunity. … City of San Bernardino (1971) 16 Cal.App.3d 739, on which McMahan’s had relied, as one example of a qualified immunity in action.

Carter v. City of Carlsbad

799 F. Supp. 2d 1147 · District Court, S.D. California · Jun 30, 2011

Whether Officer Meritt Is Entitled to Qualified Immunity Qualified immunity shields government officials “from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … The decisions go back and forth, however, on the second prong of the qualified immunity inquiry — whether the law was clearly established at the time of the incident.

Quiroz v. Short

85 F. Supp. 3d 1092 · District Court, N.D. California · Mar 31, 2015

Accordingly, defendant is entitled to qualified immunity. Alternatively, even assuming that the law is clearly established that plaintiffs relationship with Ms. … Alternatively, defendant is entitled to qualified immunity on this claim. The law is clearly established that inmates have a right to marry. Turner, 482 U.S. at 95-96 , 107 S.Ct. 2254 .

People v. Mentch

45 Cal. 4th 274 · California Supreme Court · Nov 24, 2008

(Nov. 5, 1996)) provides partial immunity for the possession and cultivation of marijuana to two groups of people; qualified medical marijuana patients and their primary caregivers. … What is not permitted is for an individual to establish an after-the-fact caregiving relationship in an effort to thereby immunize from prosecution previous cultivation or possession for sale. (Cf. People v.

City of Riverside v. Inland Empire Patients Health & Wellness Center, Inc.

56 Cal. 4th 729 · California Supreme Court · May 6, 2013

Hence, we determined, section 11362.765, subdivision (b)(3), which grants immunity from certain state marijuana laws to one who “provides assistance to a qualified patient or . . . primary caregiver, in administering medical … Finally, the Court of Appeal found no merit in the defendants’ contention that because section 11362.775 affords qualified collective cultivation projects a limited immunity from nuisance prosecution under the state’s “drug

Dougherty v. Golden Gate Bridge

31 F. Supp. 2d 724 · District Court, N.D. California · Jul 7, 1998

qualifying for Eleventh Amendment immunity. … Earlier in the opinion, however, the court clearly had established that the Port Authority enjoyed Eleventh Amendment immunity, id. at 613 ; and it was not until the court held that the Port Authority' enjoyed Eleventh Amendment

Henderson v. Bakersfield Police Department

District Court, E.D. California · Apr 15, 2022

City of Orange, 485 F.3d 463, 476 (9th Cir. 2007) (Stating it was “clearly established long ago 20 that an officer may not conduct a warrantless arrest absent probable cause.”). 21 While Plaintiff did not directly … Further, while 24 Plaintiff has not named a judge or judicial officer, even if he had, they are generally immune 25 from such suits, as it “is generally well established that ‘granting bail and fixing its amount are

Casey N. v. County of Orange

California Court of Appeal · Dec 23, 2022

“Government employees generally are shielded by qualified immunity ‘from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person … To determine whether qualified immunity applies, the court makes a two-pronged inquiry: (1) has a constitutional right been violated, and (2) was that right clearly established at the time of the defendant’s alleged misconduct

Sterner v. United States Drug Enforcement Agency ("Dea")

467 F. Supp. 2d 1017 · District Court, S.D. California · Oct 11, 2006

Qualified Immunity Qualified immunity shields government officials performing discretionary functions from liability for civil damages unless their conduct violates clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of … Finally, “a plaintiff can only survive summary judgment on a defense claim of qualified immunity if the plaintiff can both establish a substantial showing of a deliberate falsehood or reckless disregard and establish that

Mann v. County of San Diego

147 F. Supp. 3d 1066 · District Court, S.D. California · Nov 23, 2015

established right, Defendants were entitled to qualified immunity to the extent that Plaintiffs’ § 1983 claims rested on the Po-linsky examinations. … of the legal rules that were ‘clearly established’ at the time the action was taken.”

Lay v. Porker

371 F. Supp. 2d 1159 · District Court, C.D. California · Apr 8, 2004

The Constitutional Violation Was Not Clearly Established The second Saucier prong raises the “purely legal” issue of whether the law at the time of the alleged constitutional violation was clearly established. Biggs v. … Conclusion As the unlawfulness of Defendant’s conduct was not “clearly established” within the framework of Saucier. Defendant is entitled to qualified immunity for the claims asserted against him.

Swan v. United States

159 F. Supp. 2d 1174 · District Court, N.D. California · Mar 21, 2001

Young-Millers’s Qualified Immunity from Swan’s Eighth Amendment Claim The defense of qualified immunity protects “government officials ... from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly … The qualified immunity analysis then becomes a two-part test: (1) Was the law governing the official’s conduct clearly established?

Cordova v. Lake County

District Court, N.D. California · Mar 29, 2024

To analyze qualified immunity, a court engages in a two- 14 prong inquiry, asking whether a constitutional right has been violated and whether that right was 15 “clearly established.” Pearson v. … The Court concludes 21 that Howe and Martinez are entitled to qualified immunity.

Martin v. County of San Diego

650 F. Supp. 2d 1094 · District Court, S.D. California · Oct 23, 2009

at issue was “clearly established” at the time of the alleged misconduct. … Maus’ qualified immunity argument.

Quintana v. Baca

233 F.R.D. 562 · District Court, C.D. California · Oct 18, 2005

Affirmative Defense: 2 Baca’s second affirmative defense asserts that Baca is entitled to qualified immunity because (1) there is no constitutional violation, (2) the applicable law was not clearly established, and (3) reasonable … The plaintiff asserts that there can be no qualified immunity because the law was clearly established, and *565 no reasonable officer could have believed the alleged actions were reasonable. (Mot. 5.)

(PC) Gould v. California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation

District Court, N.D. California · Feb 3, 2020

Id. at 236. 14 With respect to the second prong of the qualified immunity analysis, the Supreme Court 15 has recently held that “[a]n officer cannot be said to have violated a clearly established right unless … .; see, e.g., Pearson, 555 5 U.S. at 243-45 (concluding that officers were entitled to qualified immunity because their conduct 6 was not clearly established as unconstitutional as the “consent-once-removed” doctrine