Case law

Jones v. Pollard

District Court, S.D. California · Mar 9, 2022

“Government officials enjoy qualified immunity from civil damages 21 unless their conduct violates ‘clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of 22 which a reasonable person would have known.’” … Second, 27 the Court must determine whether the right was clearly established.

(PC) Gordon v. Cooper

District Court, E.D. California · May 1, 2025

Spencer, 336 F.3d 832, 835 (9th Cir. 2003), did not clearly establish a constitutional 1 right to privacy in juvenile records); A.C. v. Cortez, 398 F. Supp. 3d 748, 752 (S.D. … App’x 811, 812 (9th Cir. 2013) (holding social workers entitled to qualified 4 immunity because there was no clearly established constitutional “right to privacy” for juvenile 5 records even when disclosed to third parties

Sims v. Diaz

District Court, N.D. California · Mar 23, 2021

was “clearly established” at the time of the alleged misconduct. … 27 Fever spores—was not clearly established at the time”); Horton v.

Pittsley

District Court, E.D. California · Oct 1, 2025

of showing that the 27 rights allegedly violated were ‘clearly established.’” … constitutes an Eighth Amendment violation, defendant is entitled 12 to qualified immunity. 13 Qualified immunity protects “all but the plainly 14 incompetent or those who knowingly

C.F. v. Capistrano Unified School District

656 F. Supp. 2d 1190 · District Court, C.D. California · Sep 15, 2009

established’ to preclude qualified immunity.” … Thus, the doctrine of qualified immunity looks to whether there was a clearly established right in issue.

(PC) Arrant v. Santoro

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

Qualified Immunity 26 The defense of qualified immunity protects “government officials ... from liability for civil 27 damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly … A court considering a 5 claim of qualified immunity must determine whether the plaintiff has alleged the deprivation of 6 an actual constitutional right and whether such a right was clearly established such that it would

(PC) Melendez v. Diaz

District Court, E.D. California · Jul 2, 2024

The law is also “clearly established” for the purposes of qualified immunity 17 if “every reasonable official would have understood that what he is doing violates th[e] right” at 18 issue. Taylor v. … In other words, the correctional 16 officer was entitled to qualified immunity if there was no clearly established right to properly 17 conducted security checks.

(PC) Williams v. Pilkerten

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

Qualified 19 immunity shields government officials from civil damages unless their conduct violates “clearly 20 established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” 21 Harlow … right, and if so, whether 28 the right was clearly established.

Anderson v. California Department of Correction

District Court, N.D. California · Mar 14, 2022

Qualified Immunity 21 Defendant Ferguson argues that he is entitled to qualified immunity because he did not 22 violate Plaintiff’s Eight Amendment rights and because it … To determine whether an 11 officer is entitled to qualified immunity, the Court must consider whether (1) the officer’s conduct 12 violated a constitutional right, and (2) that right was clearly established at the time

Marshall v. County of San Diego

238 Cal. App. 4th 1095 · California Court of Appeal · Jul 22, 2015

The defense of qualified immunity "A government official sued under [section] 1983 is entitled to qualified immunity unless the official violated a statutory or constitutional right that was clearly established … immunity unless they violated a "clearly established" constitutional right.

Pachote v. County of Contra Costa

District Court, N.D. California · Nov 3, 2023

Qualified Immunity. 20 Nelson and Thomas also contend that they are entitled to qualified immunity on Pachote’s 21 Section 1983 claims. … The doctrine of “qualified immunity shields individual officers from 22 liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct did not violate clearly established constitutional 23 rights of which a reasonable person

Apothio, LLC v. Kern County

District Court, E.D. California · Mar 27, 2023

immunity. … that was clearly established at the time of Defendant’s alleged 14 misconduct).

Harrison v. Kernan

District Court, N.D. California · Sep 21, 2021

Ct. 26 831 (Jan. 23, 2017) (qualified immunity looks at whether the right was clearly established when the defendant acted). … See e.g., S.B., 864 F.3d at 1015 (qualified 7 immunity looks at whether the right was clearly established when the defendant acted).

Mendoza v. City of West Covina

206 Cal. App. 4th 702 · California Court of Appeal · May 8, 2012

The qualified immunity rule shields public officers from section 1983 actions unless the officer has violated a clearly established constitutional right. … The Saucier court established a two-step procedure for determining whether a defendant’s conduct was entitled to qualified immunity.

James v. Lee

District Court, S.D. California · Aug 1, 2020

Qualified Immunity 21 “Qualified immunity attaches when an official’s conduct does not violate clearly 22 established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable … “Qualified immunity attaches when an official’s conduct does not violate 17 clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a

Emmons v. City of Escondido

168 F. Supp. 3d 1265 · District Court, S.D. California · Mar 2, 2016

Qualified Immunity The Supreme Court recently summarized the doctrine of qualified immunity. … conduct is clearly established.”

Torres v. Kernan

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

A court considering a claim of 8 qualified immunity must determine whether the plaintiff has alleged the deprivation of an actual 9 constitutional right and whether such right was clearly established, such that it would … Even if the 17 allegations of the complaint are sufficient to state a claim for violation of § 5301, defendants are 18 entitled to qualified immunity because of the lack of clearly established law. 19 In Nelson

Fowler v. Block

2 F. Supp. 2d 1268 · District Court, C.D. California · May 15, 1998

(2) Was such right clearly established at the time of the alleged offense? (3) If there is a clearly established right, is the issue of qualified immunity [ ] properly addressed in a motion for summary judgment? … Under the two-part test, there'is qualified immunity if: (1) the law governing the official’s conduct was “clearly established;” and (2) under that “clearly established” law, a reasonable officer could have believed that

(PC) King v. Biter

District Court, E.D. California · Feb 4, 2021

Qualified Immunity 5 Qualified immunity applies when an official's conduct does not violate clearly established 6 statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable … City of 17 Roseville, 882 F.3d 843, 856-57 (9th Cir. 2018) (noting that Ninth Circuit precedent is sufficient to 18 meet the “clearly established” prong of qualified immunity); Hamby v.

Velasquez v. Senko

643 F. Supp. 1172 · District Court, N.D. California · Mar 31, 1986

If the law was clearly established, the immunity defense ordinarily should fail, since a reasonably competent public official should know the law governing his conduct. … The Court explained: Unless the plaintiffs allegations state a claim of violation of clearly established law, a defendant pleading qualified immunity is entitled to dismissal before the commencement of discovery.