Case law

Anselmo v. County of Shasta

873 F. Supp. 2d 1247 · District Court, E.D. California · Jun 8, 2012

“[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 should have … If a right is clearly established, a public official is granted qualified immunity only if a reasonable official would not have known that his conduct violated the clearly established right. See id.

Wheeler v. Marengo

District Court, S.D. California · Nov 13, 2019

Appx. 647, 649 (9th Cir. 2007) (“The law in this circuit 6 is clearly established that ‘a prison official acts with deliberate indifference when he 7 ignores the instructions of the prisoner’s treating physician … Defendants’ Entitlement to Qualified Immunity 8 The Supreme Court has set forth a two-part analysis for resolving government 9 officials’ qualified immunity claims. See Saucier v.

Estate of Garcia Toribio v. City of Santa Rosa

381 F. Supp. 3d 1179 · District Court, N.D. California · Apr 4, 2019

The qualified immunity doctrine shields a government official performing discretionary functions from liability for civil damages if the officer's conduct does not violate a "clearly established statutory or constitutional … See Sheehan , 135 S.Ct. at 1776 (questioning without deciding whether "a controlling circuit precedent could constitute clearly established federal law in these circumstances" for purposes of Section 1983 qualified immunity

(PC) Reed v. Flores

District Court, E.D. California · Jan 13, 2025

(ECF No. 15-1 at 14-15.) 25 Qualified immunity applies when an official’s conduct does not violate clearly established 26 statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known. … City of Roseville, 882 F.3d 843, 856-57 (9th Cir. 2018) (holding that Ninth Circuit 15 precedent is sufficient to meet the “clearly established” prong of qualified immunity).

Payne v. County of Humboldt

655 F. Supp. 1341 · District Court, N.D. California · Mar 18, 1987

In other words, defendants who act pursuant to their official duties may still be liable under section 1983 if they act unreasonably or in violation of clearly established laws. … To deny him qualified immunity protection unless he goes further and demonstrates that his actions were above the benchmark of legal good faith, would make the concept of qualified immunity a meaningless embellishment.

Burt v. Carlson

752 F. Supp. 346 · District Court, C.D. California · Oct 12, 1990

There are two kinds of immunity. One is absolute immunity, and the other is qualified or good-faith immunity. … Under qualified immunity, government officials are shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would

Estate of Lopez v. Gelhaus

149 F. Supp. 3d 1154 · District Court, N.D. California · Jan 20, 2016

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 … Based on the review of the cases above, the court finds *1165 that it was clearly established, and thus, qualified immunity does not shield Gelhaus from liability.

Southern California Rapid Transit District v. Superior Court

30 Cal. App. 4th 713 · California Court of Appeal · Nov 30, 1994

They dismiss defendants’ argument that the court failed to rule on their qualified immunity defense. … However, the qualified immunity under federal law upon which the defendants rely here does not apply if their actions violated a clearly established *731 statutory or constitutional right of which a reasonable person should

Sandoval v. County of Sonoma

72 F. Supp. 3d 997 · District Court, N.D. California · Oct 29, 2014

“[C]ourts may grant qualified immunity on the ground that a purported right was not ‘clearly established’ by prior case law....” Reichle v. Howards, — U.S. —, 132 S.Ct. 2088, 2093 , 182 L.Ed.2d 985 (2012). … A Court may grant “qualified immunity on the ground that a purported right was not ‘clearly established’ by prior case law....” Reichle v.

C.B. v. Sonora School District

691 F. Supp. 2d 1170 · District Court, E.D. California · Mar 8, 2010

Qualified Immunity. Defendants move to dismiss the Eighth Cause' of Action on the ground that the individual defendants are entitled to qualified immunity from liability for damages under Section 1983. … Qualified immunity serves to shield 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

Browne v. County of Tehama

213 Cal. App. 4th 704 · California Court of Appeal · Feb 6, 2013

such intention is made clearly to appear either by express declaration or by necessary implication.’ … The Ordinance is clearly not a ban. 11 Simply put, the Ordinance does not prohibit the cultivation of medical marijuana by qualified patients.

Fazaga v. Federal Bureau of Investigation

885 F. Supp. 2d 978 · District Court, C.D. California · Aug 14, 2012

The doctrine of qualified immunity was established to protect government officials “from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate any clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of … The Agent Defendants argue that they are entitled to qualified immunity because it was not clearly established that Plaintiffs were “aggrieved persons.”

Smith v. Schwarzenegger

137 F. Supp. 3d 1233 · District Court, E.D. California · Oct 7, 2015

Qualified Immunity. … Accordingly, the Court skips the first step of the Saucier qualified immunity analysis. b. Defendants Did Not Violate Clearly Established Law.

Venegas v. County of Los Angeles

11 Cal. Rptr. 3d 692 · California Supreme Court · Apr 5, 2004

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. (Saucier, supra, 533 U.S. at p. 201.) … 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.” (Ibid.)

Coming Up, Inc. v. City & County of San Francisco

857 F. Supp. 711 · District Court, N.D. California · Jun 21, 1994

First, plaintiffs urge the Court *714 to only consider the defense of qualified immunity with reference to “clearly established law.” Harlow v. … Thus the availability of qualified immunity depends upon the “ ‘objective legal reasonableness’ of the action ... in light of the legal rules that were ‘clearly established’ at the time it was taken.”

People Ex Rel. Feuer v. Progressive Horizon, Inc.

248 Cal. App. 4th 533 · California Court of Appeal · May 31, 2016

Proposition D bans medical marijuana businesses, but grants certain qualifying businesses a limited immunity from enforcement of the ordinance. … As set forth in the Declarations attached to these moving papers, Progressive has resolved the LiveScan issue and now fully qualifies for limited immunity.

Jimenez v. County of Los Angeles

29 Cal. Rptr. 3d 553 · California Court of Appeal · Jun 2, 2005

were entitled to qualified immunity. … Government employees generally are shielded by qualified immunity “from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person

Prokop v. City of Los Angeles

59 Cal. Rptr. 3d 355 · California Court of Appeal · May 21, 2007

—In Carroll, supra, 60 Cal.App.4th 606 , the court held that a paved bicycle path qualifies as a “trail” under the immunity provisions of section 831.4. … We have already disposed of this argument: Government Code section 815, subdivision (b), clearly provides that the liability of a public entity established by “this part”—which includes the section 815.6 liability for failure

(PC) Bobadilla v. Knight

District Court, E.D. California · Jul 20, 2020

established law and is entitled to qualified immunity. 3 C. … has established a violation of his First Amendment rights, 20 defendant is entitled to qualified immunity because plaintiff’s alleged free speech rights were not 21 clearly established at the time of the May 21, 2017

MacIas v. County of Los Angeles

50 Cal. Rptr. 3d 364 · California Court of Appeal · Oct 27, 2006

violation, the right was not clearly established. … immunity because the right at issue was not clearly established).