Case law

Mierzwa v. City of Garfield

170 F. App'x 212 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Oct 19, 2005

Finally, the Court found that because the State is immune from liability under § 1983, the Mierzwas’ due process claim lacks merit. … In addition, the individual Garfield defendants (police and prosecutor) enjoy qualified immunity as their conduct in investigating the incident between Edward and Thomas did not violate clearly established constitutional

David Andrews v. Robert Scuilli

853 F.3d 690 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Apr 10, 2017

If no constitutional right would have been violated were the allegations established, there is no necessity for further inquiries concerning qualified immunity. … This leaves us with the question of whether the rights at issue were clearly established at the time.18 We need not dwell on this.

Carter v. City of Philadelphia

181 F.3d 339 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Apr 28, 1999

Jordan, 415 U.S. 651, 663 (1974)) (emphasis added). 19 Eleventh Amendment immunity is an affirmative defense and the burden is thus on the DA's Office to establish its immunity from suit. See Christy v. … PROSECUTORIAL IMMUNITY 42 We must begin with "[t]he presumption . . . that qualified rather than absolute immunity is sufficient to protect government officials in the exercise of their duties" and the observation that the

Phoenician Mediterranean Villa, LLC v. Swope (In Re J & S Properties, LLC)

872 F.3d 138 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Sep 28, 2017

clearly established law. … “To overcome qualified immunity, a plaintiff must plead facts ‘showing (1) that the official violated a statutory or constitutional right, and (2) that the right was “clearly established” at the time of the challenged conduct

Bayer v. Monroe County Children and Youth Services

577 F.3d 186 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Aug 14, 2009

And in light of Pearson , we need not reach this issue, as we find that, under the “clearly established” prong of the Saucier test, defendants should be afforded qualified immunity with respect to this claim. … See Pearson, 129 S.Ct. at 822 (forgoing the first Saucier step and finding the defendants “are entitled to qualified immunity because [their conduct] did not violate clearly established law”).

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.

Frank Minor v. Delaware River & Bay Authority

70 F.4th 168 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jun 8, 2023

“To resolve a claim of qualified immunity, [we] en- gage in a two-pronged inquiry: (1) whether the plaintiff suffi- ciently alleged the violation of a constitutional right, and (2) whether the right was clearly established … clearly established constitutional right.”

Roy Lee Williams v. Secretary Pennsylvania Department of Corrections

117 F.4th 503 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Sep 20, 2024

But that rule was newly articulated, and this Court held that qualified immunity applied because that articulation of the right was not clearly established. Id. at 553. … Thus, a letter from a federal agency cannot satisfy the ‘clearly established’ standard for qualified immunity.

Mann Ex Rel. Estate of Mann v. Palmerton Area School District

872 F.3d 165 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Sep 22, 2017

In addressing the clearly established prong of the qualified immunity inquiry, we must define the right allegedly violated at the appropriate level of specificity. Sharp v. … We granted qualified immunity to the gym teacher, concluding that a child did not have a clearly established right to dry-drowning intervention protocols while participating in gym class. Id. at 641.

John Mclaughlin v. Alex Watson

271 F.3d 566 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Nov 20, 2001

Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 817 , 102 S.Ct. 2727, 2732 (1982) (citations omitted)). 21 In order to defeat an assertion of qualified immunity, a plaintiff must allege that the official violated a "clearly established" right. … In the Motion to Dismiss, Stiles clearly asserted a "qualified immunity" defense. App. at 258.

Sherwood v. Mulvihill

Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · May 15, 1997

As government officials engaged in discretionary functions, Defendants are qualifiedly immune from suits brought against them for damages under section 1983 "insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory … Where a defendant asserts a qualified immunity defense in a motion for summary judgment, the 5 plaintiff bears the initial burden of showing that the defendant's conduct violated some clearly established

Anne Powers v. John T. Lightner, D/B/A Lightner Auto Sales, Third-Party v. Barry Jones and Bruce White, Third-Party

752 F.2d 1251 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jan 16, 1985

Accordingly, the Court dropped the subjective component and announced that qualified immunity is to be judged by a simple objective standard: whether the acts of the official violated “clearly established statutory or constitutional … But when clearly established rights are involved, qualified immunity does not protect against trial: [W]e see no substantial basis for holding ... that executive officers generally may with impunity discharge their duties

Angelo Clark v. Robert Coupe

55 F.4th 167 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Nov 28, 2022

immunity grounds, finding Clark failed to allege the violation of a clearly established right. … Qualified Immunity “The doctrine of qualified immunity shields officials from civil liability so long as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable

Atkinson v. Taylor

316 F.3d 257 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jan 21, 2003

We cannot conclude that appellants are entitled to qualified immunity. Atkinson has fulfilled Sauciers first prong for denying qualified immunity by alleging a violation of a clearly established constitutional right. … Milhouse clearly established that such retaliatory actions, if proven, are not legal. Thus, Saucier’s second prong is satisfied and appellants are not entitled to qualified immunity. C.

HIRA Educational Services Nort v. Frank Augustine

991 F.3d 180 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Mar 15, 2021

B Qualified immunity shields officials from civil liability “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” … When analyzing a qualified immunity claim we consider “(1) whether the plaintiff sufficiently alleged the violation of a constitutional right, and (2) whether the right was ‘clearly established’ at the time of the official

Wright v. City of Philadelphia

409 F.3d 595 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jun 6, 2005

violated was clearly established. … right was clearly established.”

Willashia Williams v. City of York

967 F.3d 252 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jul 24, 2020

B The doctrine of qualified immunity shields officials from civil liability “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have … “To resolve a claim of qualified immunity, [we] engage in a two-pronged inquiry: (1) whether the plaintiff sufficiently alleged the violation of a constitutional right, and (2) whether the right was clearly established at

Hynson v. City of Chester

827 F.2d 932 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Sep 2, 1987

In reviewing the denial of a defendant’s claim of qualified immunity, our determination is limited to the purely legal question of whether the facts alleged support a violation of clearly established law: An appellate court … clearly established at the time of the conduct at issue.

Raheem Jacobs v. Cumberland County

8 F.4th 187 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Aug 10, 2021

The officers moved for summary judgment on the ground of qualified immunity. … Our qualified-immunity analysis consists of two questions: (1) whether this set of facts shows Williams violating a constitutional right, and (2) “whether the right was clearly established, such that ‘it would [have been]

Don Karns v. Kathleen Shanahan

879 F.3d 504 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jan 11, 2018

However, as in Fields itself, this right was not clearly established at the time of the challenged conduct. … Accordingly, although the right identified by Karns and Parker is now clearly established in this Circuit, our qualified immunity analysis in this case remains unchanged. See Brosseau v.