Case law

Bearman v. California Medical Board

176 Cal. App. 4th 1588 · California Court of Appeal · Aug 26, 2009

In determining whether supervisor has qualified immunity, we “undertake a two-step analysis: ‘(1) Was the law governing the official’s conduct clearly established? … To avoid the qualified immunity defense, appellant must show that supervisor’s conduct “violate[d] clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known. [Citations.]”

Nelson v. Giurbino

395 F. Supp. 2d 946 · District Court, S.D. California · Oct 20, 2005

Relying on these cases and decisions, Plaintiff asserts that his constitutional right to access internet generated materials was clearly established and concludes that Defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity. … Since Plaintiffs fails to allege a violation of a clearly established constitutional right, the Court finds that Defendant Grannis is entitled to qualified immunity. 3.

King v. State

242 Cal. App. 4th 245 · California Court of Appeal · Nov 18, 2015

But Defendants are only entitled to qualified immunity as a matter of law if, taking the facts in the light most favorable to [the Plaintiff], they violated no clearly established constitutional right. … The state and Tawney premise their 26 qualified immunity claim on an extremely narrow, factually detailed view of what the clearly established law would be in this case.

McCoy v. City of Vallejo

District Court, E.D. California · Jun 29, 2021

See Mot. at 17–18. 1 Qualified immunity “protects government officials from liability 2 for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate 3 clearly established statutory or constitutional … actions, 18 as clearly established law).

Montelongo v. City of Modesto

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

Qualified Immunity 22 Qualified immunity shields officials from civil liability where a reasonable officer would 23 not have known that his conduct violated a clearly established right. … established law.”). 24 Officer Wallace is not entitled to summary judgment based on qualified immunity 25 because, as established previously, there is a material issue of fact as to whether Officer Wallace 26

(PC) Trehearne v. Huggett

District Court, E.D. California · Feb 19, 2025

1 parole revocation acts like a police officer applying for an arrest warrant and is therefore entitled 2 to qualified immunity); Thornton v. … arising from the duty to supervise parolees is 9 covered by qualified immunity[.]”). 10 Plaintiff’s allegations in both claims two and three that he has been arrested and returned

Cunningham v. Kramer

178 F. Supp. 3d 999 · District Court, E.D. California · Apr 15, 2016

The doctrine of qualified immunity protects government officials from civil liability where “their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known … O’Neill held that,'under circumstances substantially identical to those asserted here, Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity on the ground that law was not “clearly established” that inmates have a constitution right

(PC) Calloway v. Nieves

District Court, E.D. California · Jun 21, 2022

Lastly, defendants contend that they are entitled to 14 qualified immunity because their conduct did not violate clearly established federal law. … Qualified Immunity 22 “Government officials enjoy qualified immunity from civil damages unless their conduct 23 violates ‘clearly established statutory or constitutional rights

Rodriguez v. County of Los Angeles

96 F. Supp. 3d 990 · District Court, C.D. California · May 29, 2014

immunity to officers who used Tasers in which courts held that Taser usage was not “clearly established.” … These theories arose from clearly established constitutional violations which, if proven, would disqualify a defendant from qualified immunity protections. Hope v.

Shane v. County of San Diego

District Court, S.D. California · Jun 16, 2023

If a right is not clearly established, the defendant is 8 entitled to qualified immunity. Lawrence v. U.S., 340 F.3d 952, 956 (9th Cir. 2003). … Cty. of Santa Barbara, 868 F.3d 1110, 1117 (9th Cir. 2017) (holding that qualified 4 immunity applies if no clearly established law exists on the issue); see also White, 580 U.S. 5 at 79 (noting that clearly established

Blair Hays v. J. Gastelo

District Court, C.D. California · May 4, 2021

Qualified Immunity 20 Courts recognize qualified immunity “to balance competing values: not only the 21] importance of a damages remedy to protect the rights of citizens . . . but also ‘the need to protect … As 28 such, “[o]nce the official pleads qualified immunity, the burden is on the plaintiff to prove two elements: (1) that the right was violated; and (2) that the right was clearly established at the 2| time

Bradley v. Medical Board

56 Cal. App. 4th 445 · California Court of Appeal · Jul 15, 1997

Immunity The qualified immunity defense protects “government officials performing discretionary functions . . . from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or … When qualified immunity is asserted, we must undertake a two-step analysis: “(1) Was the law governing the official’s conduct clearly established?

(PC) Castellano v. Shrum

District Court, E.D. California · Jul 17, 2023

Legal Standard – Qualified Immunity 13 Government officials enjoy qualified immunity from civil damages unless their conduct 14 violates clearly established statutory or constitutional rights … Ramirez–Palmer, 25 301 F.3d 1043, 1053 (9th Cir. 2002). 26 “For the second step in the qualified immunity analysis—whether the constitutional right 27 was clearly established at

Dagdagan v. City of Vallejo

682 F. Supp. 2d 1100 · District Court, E.D. California · Jan 7, 2010

A right is clearly established if a reasonable official would understand that what he is doing violates that right. If the right is not clearly established, then the officer is entitled to qualified immunity. … Defendants’ Motion for Qualified Immunity Each Defendant argues even if his actions violated Plaintiffs Fourth Amendment rights, the defense of qualified immunity shields him from liability. 4 The qualified immunity analysis

Catsouras v. Department of California Highway Patrol

181 Cal. App. 4th 856 · California Court of Appeal · Jan 29, 2010

“A rule of qualified immunity shields a public officer from an action for damages under section 1983 unless the officer has violated a ‘clearly established’ constitutional right. [Citation.] As stated in Saucier [v. … The high court explained that ‘[i]f the law did not put the officer on notice that his conduct would be clearly unlawful, summary judgment based on qualified immunity is appropriate.’ [Citation.]

Jimenez v. City of Sacramento

District Court, E.D. California · May 8, 2025

The Officers Are Not Entitled to Qualified Immunity. 5 Defendants also argue that they are entitled to qualified immunity. … “For purposes of qualified 22 immunity's clearly established prong, there does not have to be a case directly on 23 point.” D'Braunstein v. Cal.

Henderson v. Lewis

District Court, N.D. California · Sep 10, 2019

clearly established statutory or 23 constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” … To determine whether a government official is entitled to qualified 25 immunity, courts must consider (1) whether the official’s conduct violated a constitutional right, 26 and (2) whether that right was “clearly established

Venegas v. County of Los Angeles

63 Cal. Rptr. 3d 741 · California Court of Appeal · Jul 31, 2007

Today qualified immunity shields a public officer from an action for damages under 42 United States Code section 1983 *1242 unless the officer has violated a “clearly established” constitutional right. 24 By “clearly established … established’ at the time.”

Williams v. Austen

District Court, N.D. California · Sep 16, 2021

Dkt. 20 at 13-15. 10 The defense of qualified immunity protects government officials “from liability for civil 11 damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory … Courts may consider these two questions in either order, and a favorable determination for 15 the defendant on either establishes qualified immunity.

(PC) Anderson v. Becerra

District Court, E.D. California · Jan 17, 2020

Harris, 935 F.3d 670, 675-76 (9th Cir. 2019) (stating that dismissal on 25 immunity grounds may qualify as a strike for failure to state a claim where the immunity defense 26 is clear on the face of the complaint); Washington … the face of the complaint, and 3 the entirety of the complaint is dismissed for a qualifying reason under the PLRA[]”).