Case law

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.

Easton v. Sutter Coast Hospital

95 Cal. Rptr. 2d 316 · California Court of Appeal · Apr 28, 2000

Based upon the purpose of the immunity provision and upon the Legislature’s drafting of section 15634, we conclude that the privilege created by the section is absolute rather than qualified. … Clearly the purpose of the statutory scheme of which section 15630 is a part and the precise language of the 1998 version of the section, would not be advanced by denying immunity to either Moreau or Kossuth.

Gonzales v. City Of San Jose

District Court, N.D. California · Jun 15, 2020

Qualified Immunity 25 The “doctrine of qualified immunity protects government officials ‘from liability 26 for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly … Because Gonzales has not alleged a constitutional 9 deprivation, the Court need not decide whether the right was clearly established. 10 Nonetheless, the Court discusses this prong of the qualified immunity analysis

Nunez v. City of San Jose

381 F. Supp. 3d 1192 · District Court, N.D. California · May 23, 2019

Legal Standard for Qualified Immunity "The doctrine of qualified immunity shields officials from civil liability so long as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a … Whether the Right was Clearly Established at the Time of the Alleged Misconduct As for the second question in the qualified immunity analysis, officers are entitled to qualified immunity where their conduct did not "violate

Jones v. City of Modesto

408 F. Supp. 2d 935 · District Court, E.D. California · Dec 16, 2005

A public official is entitled to qualified immunity if the law governing the official’s conduct was not clearly established, or if under clearly established law he could have reasonably *959 believed that his conduct was … “While the right to due process is ‘clearly established’ by the Due Process Clause, this level of generality was *960 not intended to satisfy the qualified immunity standard.” Id.

Wasson v. Sonoma County Junior College District

4 F. Supp. 2d 893 · District Court, N.D. California · Dec 5, 1997

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 test for qualified immunity test is a two-part inquiry: (1) Was the law governing the official’s conduct clearly established? (2) Under that law, could a reasonable official have believed his conduct was lawful?

California Attorneys for Criminal Justice v. Butts

922 F. Supp. 327 · District Court, C.D. California · Apr 10, 1996

A government official is entitled to qualified immunity only if he is “performing discretionary functions” and if his “conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable … In Harlow , the Supreme Court reasoned that qualified immunity was necessary to ensure that when government officials must take action where “clearly established rights are not implicated,” they can act “with independence

Aureguy v. Town of Tiburon

825 F. Supp. 902 · District Court, N.D. California · Jun 29, 1993

Plaintiffs seek a ruling that defendants are not entitled to assert a defense of qualified immunity in this matter. … Qualified Immunity A police officer is entitled to qualified immunity for allegedly illegal official acts insofar as his conduct does not “violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable

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.

Foster v. City of Oakland

675 F. Supp. 2d 992 · District Court, N.D. California · Dec 14, 2009

Qualified Immunity Even if a law enforcement officer violates an individual’s constitutional *1005 rights, the officer may be protected by the doctrine of qualified immunity. … Qualified immunity shields a public official from individual liability for civil damages under 42 U.S.C. section 1983 so long as his conduct does not “violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which

Silva v. City of San Leandro

744 F. Supp. 2d 1036 · District Court, N.D. California · Sep 29, 2010

a clearly established right. … In any event, Defendants assert, Officers Fletcher and Khan are entitled to qualified immunity on these claims because they did not violate a clearly established right. The Court rejects both contentions.

Guillory v. Hill

California Court of Appeal · Feb 10, 2015

Defense counsel suggested below that no “clearly established law . . . says that the term search has to exclude the interviews” (italics added), and counsel similarly invokes qualified immunity on appeal because “there was … And while “the right the official is alleged have violated must have been ‘clearly established’ . . . , [t]his is not to say that an official action is protected by qualified immunity unless the very action in question has

Hoesl v. United States

451 F. Supp. 1170 · District Court, N.D. California · Apr 26, 1978

This qualified privilege in defamation actions should be distinguished from the qualified immunity available to executive officers in other types of actions. … Even if the California legislature has the authority to immunize federal employees, it clearly has not exercised it. 9 .

Morton v. Hall

455 F. Supp. 2d 1066 · District Court, C.D. California · Oct 5, 2006

by the 11th Amendment and qualified immunity. … Katz, 533 U.S. 194 , 121 S.Ct. 2151 , 150 L.Ed.2d 272 (2001), the Supreme Court established a three-part qualified immunity test.

Wilson v. Cnty. of San Joaquin

250 Cal. Rptr. 3d 563 · California Court of Appeal, 5th District · Jul 30, 2019

.) *12 Reversing the trial court's decision, the Court of Appeal first noted it was required to interpret section 850.4 to allow for liability unless "the Legislature has clearly intended immunity." ( Lewis , supra , 142 … To that end, a qualified immunity from liability shall be provided for public entities and emergency rescue personnel providing emergency services." ( Health & Saf. Code, § 1799.107, subd. (a), italics added.)

Life Science Church v. Internal Revenue Service

525 F. Supp. 399 · District Court, N.D. California · Oct 21, 1981

Economou, supra, firmly established the principle that with rare exceptions federal officials charged with Constitutional violations can claim only the qualified immunity from prosecution enunciated in Scheuer v. … The Court concluded that qualified immunity constituted adequate protection for officials who vigorously exercise the lawful public authority vested in them.

County of Tulare v. Nunes

215 Cal. App. 4th 1188 · California Court of Appeal · Apr 29, 2013

In addition, “[a]s part of its effort to clarify and smooth implementation of the [CUA], the [MMPA] immunizes from prosecution a range of conduct ancillary to the provision of medical marijuana to qualified patients.” … but merely sets forth certain immunities from criminal prosecution.

Estate of Lopez ex rel. Lopez v. Torres

105 F. Supp. 3d 1148 · District Court, S.D. California · Apr 29, 2015

Plaintiffs respond that Defendant is not entitled to qualified immunity because his complaint alleges factual allegations supporting clearly established constitutional violations. (ECF No. 14 at 21-24.) … Qualified immunity shields government officials performing discretionary functions from liability for civil damages unless their conduct violates clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable

Hernandez v. Cate

918 F. Supp. 2d 987 · District Court, C.D. California · Jan 18, 2013

Regardless of whether or not a constitutional violation occurred, qualified immunity is available if *1020 the right allegedly violated was not “clearly established.” … On analogous facts, at least one other district court has denied a motion to dismiss on the basis of qualified immunity under the “clearly established law” prong. See Armstead, 2012 WL 2577562 , at *6-*7.

LOHARSINGH v. City and County of San Francisco

696 F. Supp. 2d 1080 · District Court, N.D. California · Mar 11, 2010

As it is clearly established that probable cause, or at least, reasonable suspicion, was required to detain Plaintiff, the officers are not entitled to qualified immunity. III. ANALYSIS A. … Standard Governing Qualified Immunity Under the doctrine of qualified immunity, even if a constitutional violation occurred, governmental officials are immune if their conduct “does not violate clearly established statutory