Case law

Palmer v. Johnson

193 F.3d 346 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Oct 19, 1999

The bifurcated test for qualified immunity asks whether the plaintiff has alleged a violation of a clearly established right and, if so, whether the defendant’s conduct was objectively unreasonable. … Thus, for purposes of the qualified immunity analysis, Palmer has demonstrated a violation of his clearly established rights under the Eighth Amendment.

John Hogan v. City of Corpus Christi, Texas

722 F.3d 725 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jul 15, 2013

’s motion for summary judgment predicated upon qualified immunity: “First, the district court decides that a certain course of conduct would, as a matter of law, be objectively unreasonable in light of clearly established … “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.”10

Billy J. Hale v. Carl Townley, Billy J. Hale v. Carl Townley

45 F.3d 914 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Mar 23, 1995

If disputed factual issues material to qualified immunity are present, the district court’s denial of summary judgment sought on the basis of qualified immunity is not appealable. Feagley v. … An official’s conduct is protected by qualified immunity if, in light of legal rules that were clearly established at the time of the' action, it was objectively reasonable.

Beltran v. City of El Paso

367 F.3d 299 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Apr 15, 2004

In the absence of a violation of a clearly established constitutional right, Amador is entitled to qualified immunity as a matter of law. c. … of the clearly established legal rules at the time of the incident, and qualified immunity protects her from any civil liability.

Shaw v. Villanueva

918 F.3d 414 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Mar 11, 2019

III Villanueva and Ebrom argue that since the court granted Phillips and Morin qualified immunity, they should be immune too. … , Shaw has not appealed Phillips' qualified immunity.

Jeffrey "Zeal" Stefanoff v. Hays County, Texas and Paul Hastings, Sheriff, in His Individual and Official Capacity

154 F.3d 523 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Nov 19, 1998

An official is not entitled to qualified immunity if, at the time the challenged action occurred, the federal law proscribing it was clearly established not only as an abstract matter but also in a more particularized sense … In order to overcome Hastings’s claim of qualified immunity, Stefanoff must specifically allege the violation of a clearly established constitutional right. See Siegert v.

Troy Lee Douthit v. Clarence Jones, Sheriff, Dallas County, Texas, and W. H. McCallum

619 F.2d 527 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jun 20, 1980

The Qualified Immunity Defense. … Thus the immunity defense is not available to officials if the constitutional right allegedly infringed by them was clearly established at the time of their challenged conduct, if they knew or should have known of that right

Ducksworth v. Landrum

62 F.4th 209 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Mar 10, 2023

Here, as in all qualified immunity cases, the plaintiff must show (A) the violation of a constitutional right that (B) was clearly established at the time of the officers’ conduct. … Qualified immunity protects a law enforcement officer from personal liability in a lawsuit unless a plaintiff shows that the officer’s conduct violates a clearly established constitutional right.

Sidney Arnold v. Steven Williams

979 F.3d 262 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Oct 23, 2020

pleading the defense of qualified immunity.’” … In this case, Arnold broadly addressed qualified immunity in his original complaint by alleging that Deputy Williams “knowingly violated” “clearly established law.”

Hall v. Thomas

190 F.3d 693 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Sep 29, 1999

Finally, the district court held that even if the ADA did apply to prisons, the defendants would be qualifiedly immune from suit thereunder because Hall’s rights under the ADA were not clearly established at the time of … not clearly established prior to Yeskey.

Sarah Doe v. Jerald Neveleff

751 F.3d 383 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · May 6, 2014

“[E]valuating qualified immunity is a two-step process, and the burden is on the plaintiff to prove that a government official is not entitled to qualified immunity.” Wyatt v. … Even if we were to construe the Fifth Amendment to extend so far, no established authority at the time of the assaults would have enabled Plaintiffs to overcome qualified immunity.

Erin Lincoln v. City of Colleyville, Texas

887 F.3d 190 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Apr 5, 2018

“[O]fficers are entitled to qualified immunity under [42 U.S.C.] § 1983 unless (1) they violated a federal statutory or constitutional right, and (2) the unlawfulness of their conduct was ‘clearly established at the time. … It follows that these officers—Meeks, Scott, and Barnes—similarly were not bound by any such clearly established law. The district court correctly granted these officers qualified immunity.

Michalik v. Hermann

422 F.3d 252 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Aug 18, 2005

Evaluating qualified immunity is a two-step process. First, we determine whether the plaintiff has alleged a violation of a clearly established constitutional or statutory right. See Siegert v. … An officer need only plead his good faith, which then shifts the burden to the plaintiff, who must rebut the defense by establishing that the officer’s allegedly wrongful conduct violated clearly established law. Id.

Alan D. Whatley v. Robert E. Philo

817 F.2d 19 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · May 18, 1987

GEE, Circuit Judge: This § 1988 case presents the question whether the plaintiff has vitiated the defendants’ qualified immunity defense. … The defendants asserted their qualified immunity defense. The district court dismissed on summary judgment, 1 on the basis that Whatley had failed to overcome the immunity defense.

Jennings v. Patton

644 F.3d 297 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jun 17, 2011

B 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 … ; and (2) whether the right at issue was “clearly established” at the time of the defendant’s alleged misconduct. 3 Id. at 815-16 (citing Saucier v.

Evett v. DETNTFF

330 F.3d 681 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jun 3, 2003

The law could not be more clear that an individual has a clearly established right to be free from unlawful arrest. … First, the plaintiff must allege the violation of a clearly established right.

David Allen v. Charles McClelland, Jr.

815 F.3d 239 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Mar 9, 2016

DEFENDANTS ARE ENTITLED TO 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 … A plaintiff can overcome a qualified immunity defense by 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.

Maria S. v. Garza

912 F.3d 778 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jan 4, 2019

The qualified immunity analysis has two prongs: (1) whether the facts, taken in the light most favorable to the plaintiffs, demonstrate that an officer violated a federal right and (2) whether the right was clearly established … The district court correctly awarded qualified immunity. For the foregoing reasons, we AFFIRM the district court's grant of qualified immunity. Agent Garza does not recall being told this.

Thomas Howell v. Town of Ball

827 F.3d 515 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jul 1, 2016

Regarding the second prong of qualified immunity analysis, “a defendant cannot be said to have violated a clearly established right unless the right’s contours were sufficiently definite that any reasonable official in the … The court ultimately concluded that the Board defendants were entitled to qualified immunity because, at the time Howell was fired, it was not clearly established whether his involvement in the FBI investigation was protected

Hampton v. Oktibbeha County Sheriff Department

480 F.3d 358 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Mar 6, 2007

establishing that the official’s allegedly wrongful conduct violated clearly established law.” … If the plaintiff fails to state a constitutional claim or if the defendant’s conduct was objectively reasonable under clearly established law, then the government official is entitled to qualified immunity.