Case law

Lynda Gaines v. E. Casey Wardynski

871 F.3d 1203 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Sep 21, 2017

“Under the qualified immunity doctrine, government officials performing discretionary functions are- immune not just from liability, but from suit, unless the conduct which is the basis for suit violates clearly established … But, of course, a district court case cannot clearly establish the law for qualified immunity purposes either. See, e.g., Gonzalez v. Lee Cty.

Williams v. Alabama State University

102 F.3d 1179 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jan 6, 1997

DISCUSSION Qualified immunity shields government officials sued in their individual capacities who act pursuant to discretionary authority "insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established ... … The question of qualified immunity should be resolved in the defendant's favor on a motion to dismiss if the plaintiff fails to allege the violation of a clearly established constitutional right.

Trinell King v. Ricky Pridmore

961 F.3d 1135 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jun 5, 2020

qualified immunity may also establish that the officers are entitled to discretionary-function immunity.” … The same facts which establish Sergeant Williams’ entitlement to qualified immunity establish that his acts were not willful, malicious or in bad faith.

Rayvie Hall v. Kimberly Flournoy

975 F.3d 1269 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Sep 17, 2020

Qualified immunity is the added protection afforded government officials to protect them against “the costs of trial [and] the burdens of broad-reaching discovery,” as long as their conduct does not “violate clearly established … Forsyth, 472 U.S. 511 (1985), the Supreme Court dealt with the second requirement -- the clearly established nature of the violation -- and held that a decision denying qualified immunity would be subject to interlocutory

John David Wilson, Jr. v. Secretary, Department of Corrections

54 F.4th 652 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Nov 29, 2022

An official enjoys qualified immunity unless: (1) the plaintiff alleges facts establishing that “the defendant’s conduct violated a constitutional or statutory right”; and (2) the violated right was clearly established at … We conclude that defendants are entitled to qualified immunity because the right at issue was not clearly established.

Lassiter v. Alabama

28 F.3d 1146 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Aug 17, 1994

has recognized that where the legal norms at issue are clearly established, critical factual disputes preclude the grant of qualified immunity. … Plaintiffs may also seek injunctive relief 3 Once the qualified immunity defense is raised, plaintiffs bear the burden of showing that the federal "rights" allegedly violated were "clearly established."

Jenkins ex rel. Hall v. Talladega City Board of Education

115 F.3d 821 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jun 2, 1997

The "make specific” standard is substantially higher than the "clearly established” standard used to judge qualified immunity in section 1983 cases. Id. at 1393. … In this circuit, the law can be "clearly established” for qualified immunity purposes only by decisions of the U.S.

Thomas E. Terrell v. Steve Smith

668 F.3d 1244 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jan 30, 2012

After thorough review, we conclude that Officer Smith is entitled to qualified immunity. … qualified immunity, even in the total absence of case law.”

Austin Gates v. Hassan Khokar

884 F.3d 1290 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Mar 13, 2018

Ct. 1765, 1775–76 (2015) (overruling the denial of qualified immunity and explaining that “[q]ualified immunity is no immunity at all if ‘clearly established’ law can simply be defined as the right to be free from unreasonable … The first question addressed in a qualified immunity analysis is whether the right was “clearly established” at the time of the alleged violation.

Santamorena v. GA Military College

147 F.3d 1337 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jul 31, 1998

But still Plaintiff argues that the preexisting law was somehow so clearly established that Defendants should not be protected by qualified immunity. … Id.13 13 We have already stated that “[t]he law cannot be established by dicta. Dicta is particularly unhelpful in qualified immunity cases where we seek to identify clearly established law.” Hamilton v.

Doe Ex Rel. Doe v. Braddy

673 F.3d 1313 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Mar 16, 2012

Discussion Qualified Immunity “If the law at that time did not clearly establish that the officer’s conduct would violate the Constitution, the officer should not be subject to … Sheriff’s Office, 329 F.3d 1300, 1305 (11th Cir. 2003).4 For qualified immunity purposes in this case, the federal law applicable to the specific circumstances of this case was not close to established clearly at

Lewis v. City of West Palm Beach, Fla.

561 F.3d 1288 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Mar 11, 2009

Thus, if the violated right was not clearly established, qualified immunity still applies. Id. at 201. … A right may be clearly established for qualified immunity purposes in one of three ways: (1) case law with indistinguishable facts clearly establishing the constitutional right, Long v.

Amy Corbitt v. Michael Vickers

929 F.3d 1304 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jul 10, 2019

Because we find no violation of a clearly established right, we need not reach the other qualified immunity question of whether a constitutional violation occurred in the first place. … While it is true that "only binding precedent can clearly establish a right for qualified immunity purposes," Gilmore v.

Sylvia Daniel v. Earl Taylor, Keith Dunkel, Bernadette Hernandez, Fred Woodward, Ernest Dorling and Tommy Pritchard

808 F.2d 1401 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Sep 23, 1986

immunity because they did not violate a clearly established constitutional right of the plaintiff. … The unsettled character of this legal question is evident and demonstrates that no “clearly established” fourth amendment 3 right of plaintiff was violated. Therefore, defendants are entitled to qualified immunity.

Nolen v. Jackson

102 F.3d 1187 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jan 6, 1997

to allege a violation of a clearly established right.... … Gilley, 500 U.S. 226, 231 , 111 S.Ct. 1789, 1793 , 114 L.Ed.2d 277 (1991) (holding threshold question in a qualified immunity claim is whether a violation of a clearly established constitutional right has occurred); Lassiter

Jenkins v. Talladega City Board Of Education

115 F.3d 821 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jun 2, 1997

Qualified immunity accommodates these interests by protecting those who act in reasonable reliance upon established legal principles but permitting liability for clearly unconstitutional conduct. … The "make specific" standard is substantially higher than the "clearly established" standard used to judge qualified immunity in section 1983 cases. Id. at 1393.

Ansley v. Heinrich

925 F.2d 1339 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Mar 11, 1991

court concluded that taking the official's facts as true, the official's actions violated clearly established law and are therefore not within the scope of qualified immunity; or (2) the district court concluded that given … In Harlow, the Supreme Court stated that the immunity defense should fail if the law governing the official's actions has been clearly established.

Haney Ex Rel. Haney v. City of Cumming

69 F.3d 1098 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Nov 27, 1995

Nevertheless, qualified immunity will shield from civil damages individual government officials who perform discretionary functions "insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established … Should the plaintiff fail to show that the law was clearly established at the time in question, the individual defendant is entitled to qualified immunity.

Sureshbhai Patel v. City of Madison, Alabama

959 F.3d 1330 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · May 27, 2020

Under this test, the law is clearly established and qualified immunity can be overcome only if the standards set forth in relevant precedent “inevitably lead every reasonable officer in [the defendant’s] position to conclude … ’s] clearly established constitutional rights.”

Bob Glasscox v. Argo, City Of, etc.

903 F.3d 1207 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Sep 12, 2018

Glasscox, concluded that Officer Moses violated his clearly established right to be free from the excessive use of force. Officer Moses now appeals the denial of qualified immunity. … Because our law clearly established that such a use of force was excessive, the district court properly denied qualified immunity.