Case law

Aguilera v. Baca

394 F. Supp. 2d 1203 · District Court, C.D. California · Sep 15, 2005

Qualified immunity is appropriate if the facts, taken in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, show that the officer’s conduct did not violate a clearly established constitutional right. … Finally, because the law governing Defendants’ conduct was not clearly established at the time, Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity even if their conduct did violate Plaintiffs’ rights.

A.T. v. Dry Creek Joint Elementary Sch. Dist.

316 F. Supp. 3d 1204 · District Court, E.D. California · Jun 19, 2018

Qualified Immunity Lastly, Defendants assert they are entitled to qualified immunity. … The Court therefore must assess whether the right was clearly established. This is "a two-part inquiry: (1) Was the law governing the state official's conduct clearly established?

Hassan v. Mercy American River Hospital

3 Cal. Rptr. 3d 623 · California Supreme Court · Aug 18, 2003

However, I disagree with the majority's conclusion that section 43.8 provides only qualified immunity. … This is demonstrated by the fact that Business and Professions Code section 2318, which clearly creates absolute immunity, concludes with the same sentence.

Nichols v. Brown

945 F. Supp. 2d 1079 · District Court, C.D. California · Mar 3, 2013

“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 … Kealoha, 869 F.Supp.2d 1203, 1224 (D.Hawai’i 2012) (police chief entitled to qualified immunity where the alleged right to a firearm ownership permit following a harassment conviction was not clearly established); Dorr v.

Tagliavia v. County of Los Angeles

112 Cal. App. 3d 759 · California Court of Appeal · Nov 28, 1980

preserve the system established for the administration of the law. … On that same ground it has been held that although a judge’s exercise of criminal contempt power is clearly judicial in nature and falls within the scope of judicial immunity, the eviction of a person from the courtroom by

Keker v. Procunier

398 F. Supp. 756 · District Court, E.D. California · Aug 8, 1975

Rhodes, supra, clarified the rule that public officials of the executive branch have a “qualified immunity” from suit under § 1983. … Clearly, the “qualified immunity” of executive officers may be an extremely broad one. Nevertheless, Scheuer v.

Mendia v. Garcia

165 F. Supp. 3d 861 · District Court, N.D. California · Feb 26, 2016

Qualified Immunity Having established the availability of Bivens , the Court considers Defendants’ argument that Chang and Garcia are entitled to qualified immunity. Opp’n to Mot. to Am. at 7; Agents MTD at 26-28. … “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 conduct.”

LeBaron v. United States

794 F. Supp. 947 · District Court, C.D. California · Jan 13, 1992

In Harlow , the Supreme Court departed from its previous “knew or should have known” standard for determining when government officials act outside their qualified immunity and instead established a purely objective standard … In this case, Plaintiff makes precisely the argument, albeit under section 7431(b), that the Supreme Court rejected in the context of qualified immunity.

(PC) Kindred v. Allenby

District Court, E.D. California · Jun 15, 2021

(Id. at 335.) 11 “The doctrine of qualified immunity protects government officials 'from liability for civil 12 damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … The Jessop court found that the defendants were entitled to 12 qualified immunity because the plaintiffs failed to show that it was clearly established that this 13 conduct violated the Fourth Amendment in 2013

Carlsberg v. Gatzek

442 F. Supp. 813 · District Court, C.D. California · Dec 16, 1977

For these reasons, the doctrine of absolute immunity established in Imbler must be applied in this case. … than qualified.

Greer v. City of Hayward

229 F. Supp. 3d 1091 · District Court, N.D. California · Jan 17, 2017

“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 … A jury may agree with Tougas’s view of the evidence, but given the disputed facts and the clearly established law, I cannot find that Tougas is entitled to qualified immunity as a matter of law. C.

Reed v. City of Modesto

122 F. Supp. 3d 967 · District Court, E.D. California · Aug 7, 2015

Qualified Immunity Standard “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 … “[T]he Supreme Court set forth a two-part test for qualified immunity in excessive force cases.

Marshall v. Gates

812 F. Supp. 1050 · District Court, C.D. California · Jan 15, 1993

B) Qualified Immunity for Public Officials When performing discretionary functions, governmental officials are entitled to qualified immunity unless, in taking the challenged action, they violate “clearly established statutory … Finally, when qualified immunity is at issue, plaintiff bears the burden of showing that a “fact-specific constitutional right was clearly established.” Davis v.

Plymale v. Dyer

837 F. Supp. 2d 1077 · District Court, E.D. California · Nov 16, 2011

If the answer is no, the officer is entitled to qualified immunity. If the answer is yes, the court must proceed to the next question: whether the right was clearly established at the time the officer acted. … As discussed above, Officer Plymale fails to establish violation of a clearly established statutory or constitutional right. Qualified immunity further supports summary judgment for defendants.

Gray v. Hernandez

651 F. Supp. 2d 1167 · District Court, S.D. California · Aug 27, 2009

Defendants argue they are entitled to qualified immunity because their conduct did not violate any clearly-established right under the circumstances in which they acted. (Mot. at 14.) … See Pratt, 65 F.3d at 806 (“the prohibition against retaliatory punishment is ‘clearly established law’ in the Ninth Circuit, for qualified immunity purposes.”) (citing Schroeder v.

Sinaloa Lake Owners Ass'n v. Stephenson

805 F. Supp. 824 · District Court, C.D. California · Sep 24, 1992

General Qualified Immunity Standard When performing discretionary functions, government officials are entitled to qualified immunity unless, in taking the challenged action, they violate “clearly established statutory or … have articulated the violation of a clearly established right, the Court finds the qualified immunity defense shields the defendant because a reasonable dam safety engineering official, similarly situated, could have believed

Steed v. Department of Consumer Affairs

204 Cal. App. 4th 112 · California Court of Appeal · Mar 8, 2012

merits of his claims against those defendants because he presented no evidence showing he could overcome the qualified immunities. … that he had facts that would overcome these qualified privileges and immunities.

Cunningham v. Gates

989 F. Supp. 1262 · District Court, C.D. California · Dec 16, 1997

QUALIFIED IMMUNITY STANDARD “Government officials who perform discretionary functions are protected from liability for civil damages as long as ‘their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … Gates, 99 F.3d 911 (9th Cir.1996), conclusively establishes their entitlement to qualified immunity.

People v. CHR Herbal Remedies

219 Cal. Rptr. 3d 1 · California Superior Court · May 30, 2017

Defendants argued they should thus be allowed to present a defense at trial that they qualified for immunity because they substantially complied with the distance requirements. … LAMC section 45.19.6.2, subdivision A, makes it a misdemeanor to "own, establish, operate, use, or permit the establishment or operation of a[n] [MMB]...." in the City.

Farnham v. City of Los Angeles

80 Cal. Rptr. 2d 720 · California Court of Appeal · Dec 23, 1998

County of Los Angeles (1997) 60 Cal.App.4th 606 [ 70 Cal.Rptr.2d 504 ], we held that the paved South Bay Bicycle Path qualified as a “trail” under the governmental immunity provisions of section 831.4. … It is true that part of the legislative history—depending on who is doing the analysis—shows a concern with total immunity over only unpaved roads or trails, and a more qualified immunity (as now expressed in section 831.4