Case law

Rosado v. Alameida

497 F. Supp. 2d 1179 · District Court, S.D. California · Jun 14, 2007

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 … Pickett’s decision is not protected by qualified immunity.

Johnson v. Hornung

358 F. Supp. 2d 910 · District Court, S.D. California · Feb 17, 2005

Saucier qualified immunity inquiry, whether the constitutional right was clearly established in the factual context presented by this case. … Qualified Immunity 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 clearly

Roe v. City of San Diego

289 F.R.D. 604 · District Court, S.D. California · Mar 5, 2013

Second, Sixth, and Twenty-Second Affirmative Defenses — Good Faith, Exercise of Discretion, & Qualified Immunity Defendants’ second, sixth, and twenty-second affirmative defenses all relate to qualified immunity and the relationship … Sept. 14, 2011) (“[G]iven the case law that municipal entities qualify for neither absolute or qualified immunity, plaintiff is free to pursue the entity despite a finding of immunity for individuals, if she has otherwise

Brown v. Rafferty

District Court, E.D. California · Sep 30, 2022

Qualified Immunity 2 Defendant asserts she is entitled to qualified immunity because she did not violate clearly 3 established law. (ECF No. 26-1 at 26.) … Plaintiff argues qualified immunity does not apply.

Life Savers Concepts Ass'n of Cal. v. Wynar

387 F. Supp. 3d 989 · District Court, N.D. California · May 16, 2019

"To determine whether a government official is entitled to qualified immunity, we ask two questions: whether the official violated a statutory or constitutional right, and whether that right was clearly established at the … "A court should deny a motion to dismiss on the basis of qualified immunity if the complaint 'allege[s] acts to which qualified immunity may not apply.' " Id. (quoting Groten v.

Pickens v. Miller

216 F. Supp. 2d 1011 · District Court, N.D. California · Jul 10, 2002

“If no constitutional right would have been violated were the allegations established, there is no necessity for further inquiries concerning qualified immunity.” Id. at 2156. … However, assuming a violation is established, “the next, sequential step is to ask whether the right was clearly established.

(PS) Lull v. County of Placer

District Court, E.D. California · Apr 13, 2020

Witt, 781 F.2d 7 155, 157 (9th Cir. 1985) (listing nonexclusive factors relevant to determining whether absolute or 8 qualified immunity applies to officers whose “functions bear a close association to the judicial 9 … Penman, 103 F.3d 868, 874 (9th 26 Cir. 1996) (to establish a violation of substantive due process, “a plaintiff is ordinarily required to prove that a challenged government action was ‘clearly arbitrary and unreasonable

Kirk v. Hesselroth

707 F. Supp. 1149 · District Court, N.D. California · Jan 26, 1989

rules that were ‘clearly established’ at the time it was taken.” … rules that were “clearly established’ at the time it was taken.”

Zupan v. Brown

5 F. Supp. 2d 792 · District Court, N.D. California · Mar 23, 1998

Finally, Defendants assert that they are entitled to qualified immunity as to Mr. Zupan’s claims because their conduct did not violate clearly established law. Mr. … 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 would have

Via v. City of Fairfield

833 F. Supp. 2d 1189 · District Court, E.D. California · Jun 13, 2011

In § 1983 actions, “qualified immunity protects government officials ‘from *1195 liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable … “The test for qualified immunity is: (1) identification of the specific right being violated; (2) determination of whether the right was so clearly established as to alert a reasonable officer to its constitutional parameters

Vierria v. California Highway Patrol

644 F. Supp. 2d 1219 · District Court, E.D. California · Jun 23, 2009

Qualified Immunity Devereux argues he is entitled to qualified immunity because he was acting, at all relevant times, as a government official. … by the WCA, and (4) Devereux is entitled to absolute or qualified immunity.

Nelsen v. City of Gridley

113 Cal. App. 3d 87 · California Court of Appeal · Dec 10, 1980

In addition, section 831.6 gives absolute immunity for unimproved and unoccupied portions of certain state lands and section 831.8 gives qualified governmental immunity for the artificial conditions of reservoirs and canals … For certain artificial or improved bodies of water, it qualified the immunity depending on the use (not necessarily recreational) and the age of the user.

S.T. v. City of Ceres

327 F. Supp. 3d 1261 · District Court, E.D. California · Aug 30, 2018

"The threshold inquiry in a qualified immunity analysis is whether the plaintiff's allegations, if true, establish a constitutional violation." Wilkins v. … Here, "[i]f jury accepts plaintiff's version of the facts to be true, the officers would not be entitled to qualified immunity 'because it is a violation of clearly established law for an officer to use deadly force against

People v. Trinity Holistic Caregivers, Inc.

California Court of Appeal · Aug 21, 2015

We reject defendants’ argument they qualified for limited immunity because they substantially complied with the ICO. … “permanently” disqualify the otherwise qualified MMB from obtaining immunity.

Rush v. Federal Deposit Ins. Corp.

747 F. Supp. 575 · District Court, N.D. California · Oct 4, 1990

The Supreme Court has directed the federal courts to decide the question of qualified immunity before discovery has been conducted, based on whether the federal official’s conduct violates “clearly established statutory or … First, since plaintiff had no vested right to payment under the severance agreement, he had no “clearly established rights” of which Locke could have known.

Committee to Protect our Agricultural Water v. Occidental Oil & Gas Corp.

235 F. Supp. 3d 1132 · District Court, E.D. California · Jan 20, 2017

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'.” Jeffers v. … or constitutional right; and (ii) whether the right at issue was “clearly established.”

Maral v. City of Live Oak

221 Cal. App. 4th 975 · California Court of Appeal · Nov 26, 2013

The MMP also “immunizes from prosecution a range of conduct ancillary to the provision of medical marijuana to qualified patients. [Citation.]” (People v. Mentch (2008) 45 Cal.4th 274, 290 (Mentch).) … The MMP established a program for identification cards and granted specified persons 6 engaged in specified conduct certain immunities from criminal prosecution. (Ibid.)

Lokey v. Richardson

534 F. Supp. 1015 · District Court, N.D. California · Feb 16, 1982

Strickland rule (as applied in Navarette), the immunity defense would be unavailing to these defendants if the constitutional right allegedly infringed by them was clearly established at the time of their challenged conduct … We do not, of course, imply that the Supreme Court’s intent is to create a disincentive to the formation of clearly established guidelines in the administration of prisons.

Committee for Immigrant Rights v. County of Sonoma

644 F. Supp. 2d 1177 · District Court, N.D. California · Jul 31, 2009

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 … The second prong of Saucier asks “whether the right was clearly established.” Id.

Hernandez v. City of San Jose

241 F. Supp. 3d 959 · District Court, N.D. California · Mar 14, 2017

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 … A court considering a claim of qualified immunity must determine: (1) whether the plaintiff has alleged the deprivation of an actual constitutional right, and (2) whether such right was clearly established such that it would