Case law

Yates v. Stalder

217 F.3d 332 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jun 30, 2000

immunity grounds, claiming that his conduct did not violate any of Plaintiffs’ clearly established constitutional or statutory rights. … Equal Protection The first step in qualified immunity analysis is to determine whether the plaintiff has alleged a “violation of a clearly established constitutional right.” Hare v.

Robert Jack Hayter v. City of Mount Vernon, Harold Sullivan, Jr., Franklin County Reserve Deputy, Tyler Bannister, Mount Vernon Police Officer

154 F.3d 269 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Sep 21, 1998

infringed was “clearly established];.]” 516 U.S. at 312-313 , 116 S.Ct. 834 (citations omitted). … Next, even if a public official’s conduct has violated a clearly established constitutional right, the official is nonetheless entitled to qualified immunity if his or her conduct was objectively reasonable. Id.

Barbara Wyatt v. Rhonda Fletcher

718 F.3d 496 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · May 31, 2013

This requirement establishes a high bar. When there is no controlling authority specifically prohibiting a defendant’s conduct, the law is not clearly established for the purposes of defeating qualified immunity. … Because this is a qualified immunity case, a balancing of interests requires a clearly established right.

Robert Tolan v. Jeffrey Cotton

713 F.3d 299 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Apr 26, 2013

“The second prong of the qualified immunity test is [] understood as two separate inquiries: whether the allegedly violated constitutional rights were clearly established at the time of the incident; and, if so, … clearly- established law.

Eboni Baldwin v. Harris County Sheriff Dept

964 F.3d 320 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jul 1, 2020

The second prong of the qualified immunity analysis asks whether the detainee’s right to treatment for serious medical needs was “clearly established” such that every “reasonable official would understand that what [she] … a triable material issue concerning a violation of a constitutional right or law clearly establishing that Dorsey’s alleged conduct was objectively unreasonable, we conclude that Dorsey is entitled to qualified immunity.

Paul Cleveland v. Sid Gautreaux, III

938 F.3d 672 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Sep 13, 2019

The dispositive question in this step of the qualified-immunity analysis is “whether the violative nature of particular conduct is clearly established.” Ibid. (quoting al- Kidd, 563 U.S. at 742). … Ct. 2042, 2045 (2015) (per curiam) (summarily reversing the Third Circuit for relying on circuit precedent to deny qualified immunity, but “[a]ssuming for the sake of argument that a right can be ‘clearly established’ by

Reynaldo Ramirez v. Jim Wells County, Texas

716 F.3d 369 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · May 15, 2013

“The doctrine of qualified immunity protects public officials from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person … Because there was no false arrest, no constitutional violation occurred, and, accordingly, we have no occasion to reach the part of the qualified immunity analysis that asks whether the law was clearly established.

Cope v. Cogdill

3 F.4th 198 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jul 2, 2021

There are two aspects to qualified immunity: whether the plaintiff has alleged a violation of a constitutional right and whether the right at issue was “clearly established” at the time of the alleged violation. … Even if their actions were constitutionally unlawful, they are entitled to qualified immunity if the constitutional right at issue was not “clearly established.” Pearson, 555 U.S. at 232. 1.

Salazar v. Molina

37 F.4th 278 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jun 16, 2022

Qualified immunity allows law enforcement officers to avoid personal liability and the burdens of defending suit unless their conduct violates a clearly established constitutional right. … “Because nonprecedential opinions do not establish any binding law for the circuit, they cannot be the source of clearly established law for qualified immunity analysis.” Marks v.

Tucker v. City of Shreveport

998 F.3d 165 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · May 18, 2021

The doctrine of qualified immunity protects public officials from suit and liability for damages under § 1983 unless their conduct violates a clearly established constitutional right. Mace v. … This is true “even when . . . a court decides only the clearly-established prong of the [qualified immunity] standard.” Tolan v. Cotton, 572 U.S. 650, 657 (2014).

Eason v. Thaler

14 F.3d 8 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Feb 10, 1994

Hernandez v. Mesa

885 F.3d 811 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Mar 20, 2018

But the extraterritorial application of these protections to Hernández was not clearly established at the time of Mesa's tortious conduct. Mesa is therefore entitled to qualified immunity. See Mullenix v. … . ----, 136 S.Ct. 305 , 308, 193 L.Ed.2d 255 (2015) ("The doctrine of qualified immunity shields officials from civil liability so long as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights

Harmon v. City of Arlington

16 F.4th 1159 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Oct 26, 2021

First, the plaintiffs argue that Tran is not entitled to qualified immunity because his use of excessive force violated a clearly established constitutional right. … To overcome qualified immunity, the law must be so clearly established that every reasonable officer in this factual context—an officer holding onto the side of a fleeing car where the driver has ignored instructions

Hicks v. LeBlanc

81 F.4th 497 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Sep 5, 2023

Appellants insist they are entitled to qualified immunity because they neither violated Hicks’ constitutional rights nor acted unreasonably in light of clearly established law. We disagree. … Having established that Hicks’ right to timely release was clearly established, we turn to the first question of qualified immunity: whether _____________________ 21 U.S.

Eleanor Keller v. Attala County

952 F.3d 216 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Feb 20, 2020

Without setting forth a clearly established right for which the analysis can continue, Plaintiffs have not defeated Deputy Fleming’s qualified immunity defense. … his actions violated clearly established law.

Roger Trent v. Steven Wade

776 F.3d 368 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jan 29, 2015

The doctrine of qualified immunity “insulate[s]” state officials from liability to the extent that the officials’ actions do not violate “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights.” … As discussed, the qualified immunity analysis involves two inquiries: (1) whether the official violated a statutory or constitutional right and (2) whether that the right was clearly established. Morgan v.

Jose Elizondo v. City of Garland Police Dep

671 F.3d 506 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Feb 14, 2012

West, 662 F.3d 320, 325 (5th Cir.2011), but the same does not hold for an order granting qualified immunity. An order granting immunity can be fully and fairly reviewed after a final judgment. See Thompson v. … To establish the use of excessive force in violation of the Constitution, a plaintiff must prove: “(1) injury, (2) which resulted directly and only from a use of force that was clearly excessive, and (3) the excessiveness

Woods v. Harris County

Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Mar 19, 2024

We first address whether the district court correctly granted summary judgment in favor of the Deputy on the basis of qualified immunity. … Hudson, 933 F.3d 481, 486 (5th Cir. 2019) (“Because nonprecedential opinions do not establish any binding law for the circuit, they cannot be the source of clearly established law for qualified immunity analysis.”

Green v. Thomas

129 F.4th 877 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Mar 3, 2025

In finding clearly established law, the district court overlooked Espinal v. … particular case at hand” and granting qualified immunity because “the unlawfulness of the officers’ conduct in this case was not clearly established”). 35 See Bailey v.

Ramirez v. Escajeda

44 F.4th 287 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Aug 10, 2022

Qualified immunity shields an officer from liability if his “conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Pearson v. … Escajeda next argues that, fact disputes aside, he is still entitled to qualified immunity because his use of force did not violate any clearly established constitutional right. We agree.