Case law

Eteghaei v. County of Alameda

District Court, N.D. California · Oct 16, 2024

“The doctrine of qualified immunity protects 7 government officials from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate 8 clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable … Qualified immunity is applicable unless the official’s conduct violated a 14 clearly established constitutional right.” Id. 15 The Court finds that qualified immunity is not warranted.

C.B. v. Sonora School District

819 F. Supp. 2d 1032 · District Court, E.D. California · Sep 30, 2011

Qualified immunity shields 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 known … immunity analysis is whether the right was “clearly established” on the date of the incident.

Stewart v. Pecsi

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

Qualified Immunity 21 Defendants argue Sergeant Pecsi and Deputy Johannes are entitled to qualified immunity 22 because they did not violate clearly established law. … (ECF No. 33 at 12–13.) 24 Qualified immunity “protects government officials from liability for civil damages insofar 25 as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional

Newton v. County of Napa

217 Cal. App. 3d 1551 · California Court of Appeal · Feb 14, 1990

Appellants argue that, if they can establish that no emergency existed, the county is not immune from liability. … Federal law recognizes both a qualified and an absolute immunity of public officials.

Arellano v. Jones

District Court, S.D. California · Jun 28, 2023

Qualified Immunity 19 Finally, Defendants claim that they are entitled to qualified immunity with respect 20 to Arellano’s Eighth Amendment claims. See Defs.’ … , 7 there is no necessity for further inquiries concerning qualified immunity.”

Weinstein v. Mueller

563 F. Supp. 923 · District Court, N.D. California · Dec 15, 1982

For acts occurring before that, he is immune from liability under the doctrine of qualified immunity as set forth in Harlow v. Fitzgerald,-U.S.-, 102 S.Ct. 2727 , 73 L.Ed.2d 396 (1982). … IRS, 640 F.2d 205, 206 (9th Cir.1981), persons carrying out the investigation are entitled to only qualified immunity.

Golden Day Schools, Inc. v. Pirillo

118 F. Supp. 2d 1037 · District Court, C.D. California · Oct 27, 2000

Government employees performing discretionary functions generally enjoy qualified immunity; this immunity shields government officials from liability for civil damages, so long as “their conduct does not violate clearly established … Thus, the plaintiffs essentially argue that the defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity because applicable tenets of Fourth Amendment jurisprudence are clearly established, and no reasonable state agent would believe

Gonzalez v. Ahmed

67 F. Supp. 3d 1145 · District Court, N.D. California · Sep 9, 2014

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 … Chudy on qualified immunity grounds. See Knox v. Sw.

Bull v. City and County of San Francisco

758 F. Supp. 2d 925 · District Court, N.D. California · Dec 16, 2010

Defendant Hennessey took an interlocutory appeal on the qualified immunity issue, and the Ninth Circuit concluded that the City’s “policy requiring strip searches of all arrestees classified for custodial *928 housing in … Moreover, Plaintiffs could even have sought to add representatives as to the section 4030 claim while the matter was on interlocutory appeal as to qualified immunity. See Alice L. v.

O'TOOLE v. Superior Court

44 Cal. Rptr. 3d 531 · California Court of Appeal · Jun 14, 2006

Section 820.6 is a qualified immunity; it applies when a public employee acts “in good faith, without malice, and under the apparent authority of an enactment that is unconstitutional, invalid or inapplicable . . . .” … Plaintiffs argue this belief was unreasonable because courts have “clearly established” that peaceful demonstrators cannot constitutionally be excluded from university grounds based on a disruptive audience reaction.

Donnell G. Haddock v. Luna

District Court, C.D. California · May 9, 2024

Moynihan, 508 F.3d 1212, 1220 (9th Cir. 2007) (finding, for purposes of qualified immunity analysis in 5150 claim, the “constitutional right to be free from [mental health] detention without probable cause was clearly … established prior to 2002,” citing Maag).

Safe Life Caregivers v. City of Los Angeles

243 Cal. App. 4th 1029 · California Court of Appeal · Jan 13, 2016

The MMPA expands the criminal immunities of the CUA; qualified patients are now immune from liability for violating six different sections of the Health and Safety Code. (Health & Saf. Code, § 11362.765.) … Appellants do not clearly identify the ordinance under which they claim to have obtained legal nonconforming use rights.

People Ex Rel. Owen v. Miami Nation Enters.

211 Cal. Rptr. 3d 837 · California Supreme Court · Dec 22, 2016

Unkechuage Nation (E.D.N.Y. 2009) 660 F.Supp.2d 442 held that the entity seeking immunity ―must establish, by a preponderance of evidence, that it is an arm of the [tribe], and thus entitled to immunity.‖ (Id. at p. 465; … In adopting this factor, we disagree with the Colorado Supreme Court‘s view that high court precedent ―render[s] the entity‘s purpose and its activities irrelevant to the determination whether it qualifies for immunity.‖

Fellows v. Superior Court

108 Cal. App. 3d 55 · California Court of Appeal · Jul 10, 1980

VI The Question of Whether Plaintiffs Failed to Make an Adequate Showing of the Preliminary Facts to Establish That the Documents Sought by Defendants Qualified as “Work Product” or Whether Such Documents Came Within the … It would appear, therefore, that each document in question might fall into one of three categories: (1) as being immune from discovery by reason of the absolute portion of the privilege, (2) as *68 being immune from discovery

Selico v. Jackson

201 F. Supp. 475 · District Court, S.D. California · Jan 23, 1962

Clearly, the complaint in the case at bar alleges facts indicating the fulfillment of both of the above conditions. … DEFENDANT EVANS IS NOT IMMUNE FROM SUIT.

Villegas v. City of Anaheim

998 F. Supp. 2d 903 · District Court, C.D. California · Feb 24, 2014

Defendants’ motion is GRANTED. 2 The doctrine of qualified immunity protects government officials “from liability for civil damages insofar as then-conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … Officer Bennallack is also entitled to qualified immunity under the second prong of the analysis because clearly established law in January 2012‘ would not have put a reasonable officer in his position on notice that using

Dean v. City of Fresno

546 F. Supp. 2d 798 · District Court, E.D. California · Feb 12, 2008

FEDERAL QUALIFIED IMMUNITY 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 … If the officer could have reasonably, but mistakenly, believed that his conduct did not violate a clearly established constitutional right, then the officer will receive qualified immunity.

Gant v. County of Los Angeles

765 F. Supp. 2d 1238 · District Court, C.D. California · Apr 26, 2011

An official is entitled to qualified immunity where his or her “conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Harlow v. … But rights are not clearly established for qualified immunity purposes at this level of generality. Anderson v. Creighton, 483 U.S. 635, 639 , 107 S.Ct. 3034 , 97 L.Ed.2d 523 (1987).

De Contreras v. City of Rialto

894 F. Supp. 2d 1238 · District Court, C.D. California · Sep 25, 2012

immunity (i.e., whether the plaintiffs allegedly violated right was clearly established at the time of the injury). … Hence, the Court finds that Lee is entitled to qualified immunity because the law regarding a second application of a taser, after a first application that was objectively reasonable, was not then clearly established.

Ayala v. KC Environmental Health

426 F. Supp. 2d 1070 · District Court, E.D. California · May 8, 2006

Qualified immunity protects section 1983 defendants “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 … Qualified immunity “turn[s] primarily on objective factors”: “Reliance on the objective reasonableness of an official’s conduct, as measured by reference to clearly established law, should avoid excessive disruption of government