Case law

Gloria Jean Harper, Individually and as Mother and Next Friend of Jordan Harper a Minor and Jordan Harper v. Harris County, Texas, John P. Denholm

21 F.3d 597 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jun 28, 1994

Qualified immunity protects a police officer from liability if a reasonable competent law enforcement officer would not have known that his actions violated clearly established law. Anderson v. … The examination of a claim of qualified immunity is a two-step process. The first inquiry is whether the plaintiff has alleged a violation of a clearly established constitutional' right. Siegert v.

Taylor v. LeBlanc

60 F.4th 246 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Feb 14, 2023

Now Secretary LeBlanc appeals the denial of qualified immunity arguing, inter alia, that his conduct wasn’t objectively unreasonable in light of clearly established law. … The right to timely release is clearly established.

Rutland v. Pepper

404 F.3d 921 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Mar 28, 2005

Glynn Pepper’s summary judgment motion asserting in part his qualified immunity as a state official. … The doctrine of qualified immunity shields 2 government officials from civil liability as long “as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional

Estate of C.A. v. Castro

547 F. App'x 621 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Nov 25, 2013

Individual Defendants’ Qualified Immunity State actors sued in their individual capacity under § 1983 are entitled to qualified immunity “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … An official “does not lose qualified immunity merely because a certain right is clearly established in the abstract....

United States Ex Rel. Vaughn v. United Biologics, L.L.C.

907 F.3d 187 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Oct 16, 2018

Univ., 171 F.3d 279, 290–94 (5th Cir. 1999) (holding that Eleventh Amendment immunity was not waived on this basis). … But this principle of interpretation, known as the “Series-Qualifier Canon,” applies only when context clearly establishes that it is intended. Reading Law at 147–51.

Scallion v. Parish of Red River

251 F. App'x 853 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Aug 15, 2007

Scallion fails to identify a clearly-established constitutional right violated by Myers. See id. … (first step in qualified-immunity analysis is identifying a clearly-established constitutional right that has been violated); Malley v.

Creech Poole v. City of Shreveport

13 F.4th 420 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Sep 10, 2021

Qualified immunity shields officers from liability unless their conduct violates a clearly established federal right of which a reasonable person would have known. Kisela v. Hughes, 138 S. … of clearly established law.

Atteberry v. Nocona General Hospital

430 F.3d 245 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Nov 3, 2005

clearly established law.” … Objectively Unreasonable “To be ‘clearly established’ for purposes of qualified immunity, ‘[t]he contours of the right must be sufficiently clear that a reasonable official would understand that what he is doing violates

Banks v. Herbrich

90 F.4th 407 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jan 3, 2024

The district court denied DFPS’s motion for summary judgment, concluding that its employees were not entitled to qualified immunity because they violated clearly established law by removing R.B. … immunity analysis asks whether the right at issue was clearly established at the time of the misconduct.

Hernandez v. Texas Department of Protective & Regulatory Services

380 F.3d 872 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Aug 31, 2004

The qualified immunity analysis is a two-step inquiry. First, a court must decide whether a plaintiff’s allegation, if true, establishes a violation of a clearly established right. Hare v. … Even if the government official’s conduct violates a clearly established right, the official is nonetheless entitled to qualified immunity if his conduct was objectively reasonable.

McMurry v. Weaver

142 F.4th 292 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jun 27, 2025

Based on the facts supported by the summary judgment record, the McMurrys have established that Weaver’s search was a constitutional violation of clearly established law that defeats qualified immunity. … Romero, 937 F.3d at 522–23 (denying qualified immunity on procedural due process claim in part because Gates and Wernecke clearly established the violation); Gates, 537 F.3d at 435; Wernecke, 591 F.3d at 391 n.7.

Sanchez v. Swyden

139 F.3d 464 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Apr 16, 1998

Under the test for qualified immunity, Sanchez has failed to prove that he was deprived of a clearly established constitutional right. … The Doctrine of Qualified Immunity The well-established test for qualified immunity requires us to engage in a two-step inquiry.

Carlos Gonzalez v. Able Huerta

826 F.3d 854 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jun 23, 2016

Because we find no violation of clearly established law, we AFFIRM. I. … Huerta asserted qualified immunity and moved for summary judgment.

Crittindon v. LeBlanc

37 F.4th 177 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jun 10, 2022

Nonetheless, the majority concludes three DPSC defendants violated plaintiffs’ clearly established right to timely release from prison and denies them qualified immunity. … Even still, defendants are entitled to qualified immunity, because it is not clearly established that it violates the Constitution to hold a prisoner for 17 days while employing reasonable efforts to verify his sentence

Sorenson v. Ferrie

134 F.3d 325 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Feb 11, 1998

Claims of qualified immunity are reviewed under a two-step analysis. The first question is whether the plaintiff has asserted the violation of a clearly established constitutional right. … We hold only that, for purposes of qualified immunity in this civil case, the law was not clearly established on this question as of the date of this incident.

Marcus Hanks v. Randall Rogers

853 F.3d 738 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Apr 5, 2017

“Qualified immunity attaches when an official’s conduct ‘does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.’” White v. … App’x 453, 459–60 (5th Cir. 2015) (unpublished) (construing Deville as clearly establishing that an officer should receive no qualified immunity if he “quickly escalate[s]” an encounter with a non-threatening, passively-resisting

Michael Wigginton, Jr. v. University of Mississipp

964 F.3d 329 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jul 1, 2020

The district court erred when it denied defendants’ motion for qualified immunity and concluded that Wigginton had a clearly-established property interest. … We regularly grant qualified immunity in substantive due process cases where the plaintiff fails to establish a clearly- established property interest. See, e.g., Wilkerson v. Univ. of N. Tex.

Carswell v. Camp

37 F.4th 1062 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jun 17, 2022

But Carswell says this was “the opposite of a refusal or failure to rule” because the “district court clearly indicated it would timely address Individual Defendants’ qualified immunity defense.” … “Unless the plaintiff’s allegations state a claim of violation of clearly established law, a defendant pleading qualified immunity is entitled to dismissal before the commencement of discovery.”

Collins v. Ainsworth

382 F.3d 529 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Aug 20, 2004

Clearly established Fourth Amendment law. … Clearly established Fourteenth Amendment law.

Ajay Gaalla v. Citizens Medical Center, Et

460 F. App'x 469 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Feb 16, 2012

established, it denied the Defendants qualified immunity on those claims.4 The district court also denied official immunity to Dr. … STANDARD OF REVIEW “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