Case law

Jackson v. Atlanta, TX, City of

73 F.3d 60 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jan 24, 1996

facts showed a violation of clearly established law. … It is well established that immunity, be it absolute or qualified, is an affirmative defense available to public officials sued under § 1983.18 As we remand Jackson's § 1983 claims with instructions for 17

Harmon v. City of Arlington

Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Oct 27, 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

Salinas v. City of Houston

138 F.4th 822 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · May 23, 2025

“Under the doctrine of qualified immunity, government officials performing discretionary functions generally are shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory … violated rights were clearly established.

Jew v. Dobbins

Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Dec 30, 2025

An order denying qualified or governmental immunity from suit is immediately appealable under the collateral-order doctrine. Martinez v. Texas Dep’t of Crim. … Just., 300 F.3d 567, 576 (5th Cir. 2002) (“A denial of . . . qualified immunity is immediately appealable under the collateral[-] order doctrine . . . .” (quoting Rodriguez v.

Gullatte v. Potts

654 F.2d 1007 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Aug 31, 1981

of the qualified immunity. 25 590 F.2d at 110 . … his qualified immunity as an affirmative defense to the action.

Frazier v. King

873 F.2d 820 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · May 30, 1989

Qualified Immunity. … The defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity if Frazier’s First Amendment rights were “ ‘clearly established’ at the time of [the defendants’] conduct so that a reasonable official would have understood that his

Raul Jose Valencia v. Garry D. Wiggins

981 F.2d 1440 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jan 18, 1993

Concluding *1442 that the district court's findings of fact were not clearly erroneous, we find the jail official not entitled to qualified immunity. … are alleged to have violated.” 34 Whether a defendant asserting qualified immunity may be personally liable turns on the objective reasonableness of the defendant’s actions assessed in light of clearly established law. 35

Robert N. Creamer, Cross-Appellee v. Officer Lewis Porter, Officer J.L. Sampson and Officer R. Johnson, Cross-Appellants, Deputy David Austin

754 F.2d 1311 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Mar 15, 1985

We next consider the police officers’ defense that they are entitled to a qualified immunity for their actions. … in the qualified immunity defense. .

Delbert Johnson v. City of Fort Worth

911 F.3d 267 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Dec 19, 2018

To overcome qualified immunity, a plaintiff must show two things: (1) that the allegations make out a constitutional violation, and (2) that the violation of rights was clearly established at the time of the defendant’s conduct … Jul. 22, 1994) (denying qualified immunity for creating a racially hostile work environment which violates a clearly established section 1983 right) 2; Caldwell v. Lozano, 689 F.

Breen v. Texas A&M University

485 F.3d 325 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Apr 24, 2007

Clearly Established Law Defendants in section 1983 cases are nevertheless entitled to qualified immunity from a plaintiff’s claims unless their conduct was objectively unreasonable in light of the clearly established … The Supreme Court has made it clear, however, that courts considering qualified immunity defenses ordinarily should address the issue of clearly established law only if the plaintiff’s allegations establish a constitutional

Domino v. Texas Department of Criminal Justice

239 F.3d 752 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Feb 7, 2001

This court has stated that the test for qualified immunity “is quite familiar: (1) whether the plaintiff has alleged a violation of a clearly established constitutional right; and (2) if so, whether the defendant’s conduct … As discussed above, the first part of the qualified immunity test - whether Domino has alleged a violation of a clearly established constitutional right - depends on whether the summary judgment evidence, viewed in a light

Blank v. Bell

634 F. App'x 445 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jan 19, 2016

Upon an invocation of qualified immunity, however, “the usual summary judgment burden of proof is altered”. Michalik v. Hermann, 422 F.3d 252, 262 (5th Cir. 2005). … To defeat the defense of qualified immunity, Blank must plead facts to show: a violation of a constitutional or statutory right; and, in the light of clearly established law, Nurse Bell’s conduct was objectively unreasonable

Shipp v. McMahon

234 F.3d 907 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Dec 5, 2000

Qualified Immunity The qualified immunity analysis involves a two-step process. First, we examine whether the plaintiff has alleged a violation of a clearly established constitutional right. See Siegert v. … Clearly Established Right When evaluating a claim of qualified immunity under the “clearly established right” prong, a court first must det ermine whether the “‘plaintiff has alleged the deprivation of an actual

Ronald Curtis v. W. Anthony

710 F.3d 587 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Mar 6, 2013

As in the instant case, the individual defendants asserted qualified immunity defenses. … Such efforts would have “violate[d] clearly established constitutional rights.” Id. (citation omitted).

Anthony Gibson v. Jeffrey Kilpatrick

734 F.3d 395 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Oct 29, 2013

was clearly established. … Discussion To rebut a defendant’s qualified immunity defense, the plaintiff must show: “(1) that the official violated a statutory or constitutional right, and (2) that the right was ‘clearly established’ at the time

Rankin v. Klevenhagen

5 F.3d 103 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Oct 18, 1993

First, we determine whether the plaintiff has "allege[d] the violation of a clearly established constitutional right." Siegert v. Gilley, --- U.S. ----, ----, 111 S.Ct. 1789, 1793, 114 L.Ed.2d 277 (1991). … "Whether a defendant asserting qualified immunity may be personally liable turns on the objective legal reasonableness of the defendant's actions assessed in light of clearly established law." Mouille v.

Royce McLin v. Jason Ard

866 F.3d 682 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Aug 8, 2017

Although we hold that McLin pleads a Fourth Amendment violation, the Defendants are still entitled to qualified immunity unless the particular constitutional right at issue was “clearly established.” … We therefore hold that McLin fails to plead a violation of a “clearly established” constitutional right, and we affirm the district court’s grant of qualified immunity to the Defendants and dismissal of McLin’s Fourth Amendment

Ezmerelda Rivera v. Manuel Fierros, Jr.

691 F. App'x 234 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jul 6, 2017

Under the doctrine of qualified immunity, public officials “are shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable … When an official pleads qualified immunity, “the burden then shifts to the plaintiff, who must rebut the defense by establishing a genuine fact issue as to whether the official’s allegedly wrongful conduct violated clearly

Anthony Gibson v. Jeffrey Kilpatrick

Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jan 2, 2015

was clearly established. … Qualified Immunity A.

Jose Davila v. USA

713 F.3d 248 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Apr 3, 2013

“Qualified immunity protects public officers from suit if their conduct does not violate any ‘clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.’” Bishop v. … Once the NPS Rangers raised the qualified immunity defense, the plaintiffs bore the burden of showing that the facts alleged demonstrated that the officer violated a constitutional right, and that the right was clearly established