Case law

Monteiro v. City of Elizabeth

436 F.3d 397 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Feb 8, 2006

Perkins-Auguste as a reasonable public official would have known that her specific conduct violated the Plaintiffs clearly established rights and was not subject to qualified immunity. … Thus, if Perkins-Auguste acted with an intent to suppress Monteiro’s speech on the basis of viewpoint, she violated clearly established law and is not entitled to qualified immunity.

Michael Sauers v. Borough of Nesquehoning

905 F.3d 711 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Oct 2, 2018

the District Court's denial of qualified immunity. … In its recent decisions addressing qualified immunity, the Supreme Court has "repeatedly told courts ... not to define clearly established law at a high level of generality." Kisela v.

Curley v. Klem

Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Aug 24, 2007

a clearly established constitutional right.” … Whether a right was clearly established is the “key immunity question”; we have never permitted a jury to answer that question.

Devin Jefferson v. George Lias

21 F.4th 74 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Dec 16, 2021

violate clearly established law. … violate “clearly established” law such that he is entitled to qualified immunity.

Carol Walker v. Brian Coffey

905 F.3d 138 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Sep 20, 2018

The District Court granted Appellees’ motion to dismiss, concluding that they were entitled to qualified immunity because Walker did not have a clearly established right to privacy in the content of her work emails. … “Qualified immunity shields government officials from civil damages liability unless the official violated a statutory or constitutional right that was clearly established at the time of the challenged conduct.” 8 Qualified

Mellott v. Heemer

161 F.3d 117 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Nov 5, 1998

On appeal, the marshals contend that the district court erred by refusing to grant summary judgment in their favor on grounds of qualified immunity. … The marshals are entitled to qualified immunity if, at the time they acted, they reasonably could have believed that their conduct did not violate the plaintiffs' clearly established constitutional rights.

Acierno v. Cloutier

40 F.3d 597 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Oct 18, 1994

immunity is to examine whether the plaintiff has "allege[d] the violation of a clearly established constitutional right." … In a recent discussion of the "clearly established" right aspect of the qualified immunity determination, we stated: 75 The right an official is alleged to have violated must have been "clearly established" in a "particularized

Ziccardi v. City Of Philadelphia

288 F.3d 57 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Apr 30, 2002

The individual defendants asserted the defense of qualified immunity, but the district court refused to grant summary judgment on that ground. … a violation of a clearly established constitutional right. 4 See Eddy v.

Sherelle Thomas v. City of Harrisburg

88 F.4th 275 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Dec 6, 2023

The court rejected the Officers’ claims of qualified immunity because it found that Sherelle Thomas alleged sufficient facts to state her claims and both rights were clearly established at the time of the violations. … Clearly Established Right However, before the Officers can be denied qualified immunity from being sued for deliberate indifference to a serious medical need, the constitutional right violated must be clearly established

Williams v. Bitner

455 F.3d 186 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jul 25, 2006

We are asked to determine whether, for the purposes of qualified immunity, the conduct alleged by Williams constituted a violation of his "clearly established" rights. … Long, 72 F.3d 70, 72-74 (8th Cir.1995) (denying qualified immunity because Muslim inmates had a clearly established right not to be forced to handle pork); Kenner v.

Forbes v. Township of Lower Merion

313 F.3d 144 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Dec 11, 2002

For instance, we may "review whether the set of facts identified by the district court is sufficient to establish a violation of a clearly established constitutional right," but we may not "consider whether the district court … a violation of a clearly established constitutional right," Ziccardi, 288 F.3d at 61 , but based on the District Court's spare comments in denying the defendants' summary-judgment motion, we are hard pressed to carry out

Martha Stringer v. County of Bucks

141 F.4th 76 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jun 18, 2025

established, as required for qualified immunity. … Stringer’s clearly established constitutional rights.” Opening Br. 25, 28 (emphasis added). But that conflates the two prongs of qualified immunity.

Jorge Rivera-Guadalupe v. City of Harrisburg

124 F.4th 295 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Dec 24, 2024

We deny officers qualified immunity for violating clearly established constitutional rights—not for their failure to read tea leaves. This past year, the Supreme Court held in Chiaverini v. … Because the right that Rivera-Guadalupe seeks to vindicate in his malicious prosecution suit was not clearly established at the relevant time, the District Court erred in denying Det. Pierce qualified immunity.

Monteiro v. City of Elizabeth

436 F.3d 397 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Feb 8, 2006

Perkins-Auguste as a reasonable public official would have known that her specific conduct violated the Plaintiff's clearly established rights and was not subject to qualified immunity. See Anderson v. … B. 49 The second stage of the qualified immunity analysis is whether, given the existence of a constitutional violation, a reasonable person should have recognized it under "clearly established" law.

Montanez v. Thompson

603 F.3d 243 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Apr 22, 2010

We can determine whether Thompson is entitled to qualified immunity under the “clearly established” prong of Saucier v. Katz, 533 U.S. 194 (2001). … 12  Qualified immunity is applicable unless the official’s conduct violated a clearly established constitutional right.

Sharrar v. Felsing

128 F.3d 810 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Oct 24, 1997

QUALIFIED IMMUNITY A. … To prevail on their qualified immunity claim,--a claim not reached by the district court--defendants must show that their conduct did not violate a clearly established constitutional right of which a reasonable officer would

Jeanne Zaloga v. Borough of Moosic

841 F.3d 170 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Oct 24, 2016

Mercatili now appeals, arguing that he is entitled to qualified immunity because his conduct, even if Zaloga’s allegations are true, did not violate clearly established law. … Under the high standard for “clearly established” law, that is enough to defeat the Plaintiffs’ challenge to qualified immunity. V.

Sharp v. Johnson

669 F.3d 144 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Feb 9, 2012

The Magistrate Judge also did not err in holding that Defendants were protected by qualified immunity because they did not violate Sharp’s clearly established rights. … A right is clearly established for qualified immunity purposes where its contours are “sufficiently clear that a reasonable official would understand that what he is doing violates that right.”

Ray v. Township of Warren

626 F.3d 170 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Nov 23, 2010

“The doctrine 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 person … The Supreme Court has established a two-part analysis that governs whether a government official is entitled to qualified immunity. Saucier v. Katz, 533 U.S. 194, 201 (2001).

Cheryl James v. Wilkes Barre City

700 F.3d 675 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Nov 29, 2012

III The doctrine of qualified immunity insulates government officials who are performing discretionary functions ―from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory … The Supreme Court has established a two-part analysis that governs whether an official is entitled to qualified immunity. Saucier v. Katz, 533 U.S. 194, 201 (2001).