Case law

Manuel Balbin v. Alexis Johnson

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Mar 19, 2025

Third, it was clearly established in No- vember 2020 that Balbin’s right was violated when Officer Johnson searched his cell and threw away his things. … An official raising qualified immunity in a motion to dismiss has the initial burden of establishing that she was acting within the scope of her discretionary authority. Est. of Cummings v.

Donald Johnson v. United States Congress

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Aug 19, 2025

sovereign immunity ‘cannot be implied but must be unequivocally expressed,’” id. … It is a corollary to immunity from suit on the part of the United States . . . that this immunity cannot be waived by officials.

Norrell Sutherland v. Brian Allison

416 F. App'x 45 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Feb 9, 2011

We then answer the legal question of whether the defendant is entitled to qualified immunity under that version of the facts. … Second, the court analyzes whether the right violated was clearly established at the time of the violation.” Id.

George Pino v. William Neilds

598 F. App'x 744 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Mar 13, 2015

Qualified immunity protects government officials sued in their individual capacities if “their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known … The Supreme Court has adopted a two-part test for evaluating a claim of qualified immunity.

Danny Williams v. Billy Brown

347 F. App'x 429 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Sep 10, 2009

in retaliation for filing grievances violates his clearly established First Amendment rights.” … When assessing qualified immunity cases, we consider whether a constitutional right has been violated and whether the right was clearly established by the law at the time of the violation. Saucier v.

Michael Stevens Owens v. Asa D. Kelley, Jr., Etc.

681 F.2d 1362 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Aug 5, 1982

Owens maintains that the program is pervaded with Biblical teachings such that it violates both the Establishment and Free Exercise clauses of the First Amendment. … are the immunity claims of Dougherty County and Judge Asa Kelley.

William A. White v. Dennis Lemma

947 F.3d 1373 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jan 27, 2020

That does not qualify as a false claim under the FCA. See id. White’s abuse-of-process claim also fails. … Nor does White allege enough facts to establish damages flowing from the counterclaim. Finally, White is not entitled to defense and indemnification under Section 4007.

Larry Bolin v. Richard W. Story

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Sep 6, 2000

Further, the complaint alleges that “[i]t has been clearly established that appellate court judges in the Eleventh Circuit routinely do not read pro se briefs, but allow staff attorneys to make ‘summaries’ for them instead … Abella merely contains a general comment on the coextensiveness of remedies and immunities under § 1983 and Bivens, Charles discusses witness immunity, and Barker involves qualified immunity.

Warden Stephen Benton v. Brian Hopkins

190 F. App'x 856 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jul 25, 2006

Ferraro: Qualified immunity offers “complete protection for government officials sued in their individual capacities as long as ‘their conduct violates no clearly established statutory or constitutional … the defendant violated was “clearly established” at the time he did it.

Kevin Dale v. Stephens County, Georgia School

238 F. App'x 481 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jun 27, 2007

Whether an official is entitled to qualified immunity is a two- step inquiry: (1) whether the facts alleged show the officer’s conduct violated a constitutional right, and (2) whether that right was clearly established. … Since we find there was no constitutional violation on the part of these defendants under the first prong of the qualified immunity analysis, we do not reach the question of whether the violation was clearly established

Guaranty Financial Services, Inc. v. Ryan

928 F.2d 994 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Mar 25, 1991

It provides for no exceptions to the phase-out schedule it establishes. However, FIRREA's next section appears to establish one exception to the seemingly absolute requirements in Section 301, Sec. 5(t)(3)(A). … The language of Section 401(g) does not clearly convey a congressional intention to qualify the phase-out of supervisory goodwill or any of the other new capital standards.

Donald F. Buxton v. City of Plant City, Florida, Troy E. Surrency, Individually, Troy E. Surrency, in His Official Capacity

871 F.2d 1037 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jun 13, 1989

Buxton further contends that Chief Surrency is not entitled to qualified immunity. … Chief Surren-cy contends that he is entitled to qualified immunity.

Donald Clark Wright, III v. Brandon Warren

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · May 15, 2025

Deputy Warren timely appealed the denial of qualified immunity on that claim. II. … To qualify as “clearly established,” a legal principle “must be established with obvious clarity by the case law so that every objectively reasonable government official facing the circumstances would

Hakim v. Moore

223 F.3d 1244 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Aug 4, 2000

Brown, 71 F.3d 724, 730 (9th Cir.1995) (denying qualified immunity because requirement that prison comply with dual-name policy for mail was clearly established under Ninth Circuit standard); Salaam v. … With respect to Hakim’s cross-appeal in case number 98-3062, we affirm without discussion the portion of the district court's September 15, 1997, order dismissing under the doctrine of qualified immunity Hakim's claims against

Davis v. Monroe Cty. Board of Ed.

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Feb 14, 1996

Ruling in favor of appellant, however, would deprive future, similarly situated defendants of qualified immunity, because it would clearly establish a statutory right of which a reasonable school employee would know. … First, qualified immunity is not absolute. Second, qualified immunity does not shield officials from liability grounded on state law.

Mingo Clark v. Huntsville City Board of Education

717 F.2d 525 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Oct 17, 1983

At trial, Clark established a prima facie case of unlawful discrimination. … A finding by the court below that defendants consistently gauged the relative qualifications of applicants clearly would be probative of whether defendants’ stated reason is pretextual.

Jose Daniel Ruiz Coronado v. Bankatlantic Bancorp

222 F.3d 1315 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Aug 18, 2000

On appeal, this court reversed and remanded because the allegations in Coronado's complaint, taken in the light most favorable to Coronado, did not establish grounds for BankAtlantic's immunity. … This immunity is very broad.2 As we recently reiterated in Lopez, "the adjective 'any' is not ambiguous; it has a well-established meaning" and, "[r]ead naturally, ... has an expansive meaning, that is, one or some indiscriminately

The Hardaway Company v. United States Army Corps of Engineers

980 F.2d 1415 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jan 13, 1993

Id. at 625 . 3 Smith clearly applies to the instant case. … Smith establishes that the government cannot be held liable under the FTCA when no bond exists.

Hallmark Developers, Inc. v. Fulton County, GA

466 F.3d 1276 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Oct 12, 2006

Bradford, although not sufficient on this point to render the District Court’s judgment clearly erroneous (as will be discussed below), does establish discriminatory impact. See Jim Sowell, 61 F. … The District Court did not clearly err in refusing to credit the testimony of Dr. Bradford. We need not reach the issue of whether the District Court clearly erred in concluding that Dr.

David Randall Polk v. Joe Nugent

554 F. App'x 795 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jan 24, 2014

Although law enforcement officers have a clearly established duty not to “conceal exculpatory or impeachment evidence” from the prosecution in a criminal case, they have no clearly established duty to do anything with … Law enforcement officers, however, have no clearly established constitutional duty to do so.