Case law

Gilliam v. Fort Myers Police Department (Chief of Police)

District Court, M.D. Florida · Mar 17, 2025

“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 of which a reasonable … At the motion-to- dismiss stage, this means the Court must find entitlement to qualified immunity and dismiss “if the complaint fails to allege the violation of a clearly established right.” Id.

Tye v. City of Jacksonville

707 F. Supp. 1298 · District Court, M.D. Florida · Jan 19, 1989

Established law, however, undermines defendant’s argument. “The Court has generally been quite sparing in its recognition of claims of absolute official immunity.” Forrester v. … While this conclusion leaves qualified immunity available, id., the standard for qualified immunity of officers in the executive branch of government involves an examination of the circumstances and beliefs of the decisionmaker

Avalon Carriage Service Inc. v. City of St. Augustine

417 F. Supp. 2d 1279 · District Court, M.D. Florida · Feb 23, 2006

As a result, Plaintiff argues Defendants Harass and Litzinger acted beyond the scope of their authority and have violated clearly established law and qualified immunity is not proper. ii. … The Court’s Analysis The defense of qualified immunity protects “government officials performing discretionary functions from suit in their individual capacities unless their conduct violates ‘clearly established statutory

Ray Ex Rel. R.M. v. Foltz

354 F. Supp. 2d 1309 · District Court, M.D. Florida · Jan 21, 2005

Additionally, qualified immunity is inapplicable given the aforementioned and because the constitutional right was clearly established. Therefore, Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss^ (Doc. No. 80) is DENIED. Defendánt E.J. … Additionally, qualified immunity is inapplicable given the aforementioned and because the constitutional right was clearly established. Therefore, Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss (Doc. No. 87) is DENIED.

Burks v. Beary

713 F. Supp. 2d 1350 · District Court, M.D. Florida · Apr 29, 2010

“Qualified immunity protects municipal officers from liability in § 1983 actions as long ‘as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known … ‘clearly established’ at the time of the violation.”

Moulton v. DeSue

966 F. Supp. 2d 1298 · District Court, M.D. Florida · Oct 16, 2012

Lastly, Plaintiff contends that the constitutional violation as alleged has been clearly established at the time of the incident in question; therefore, Defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity. 1. … Because the law clearly established that conduct as alleged violated a pre-trial detainee’s Fourteenth Amendment right to medical care, Hendrix, DeSue, Mixon, and Holl *1311 ingsworth are not entitled to qualified immunity

Nam Dang v. Sheriff of Seminole County

38 F. Supp. 3d 1333 · District Court, M.D. Florida · Aug 6, 2014

In order to overcome immunity, Plaintiff must show that the Defendants violated a clearly established constitutional right. Townsend v. … Jefferson Cnty., 601 F.3d 1152, 1157-58 (11th Cir.2010) (to lose entitlement to qualified immunity, a plaintiff must show that a “(1) the defendant violated a constitutional right, and (2) this right was clearly established

Cox v. McCraley

993 F. Supp. 1452 · District Court, M.D. Florida · Feb 10, 1998

Clearly, government officials performing discretionary functions are entitled to qualified immunity from civil damages if their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable … Further, because qualified immunity is “an immunity from suit rather than a mere defense to liability,” Mitchell v.

Sharp v. City of Palatka

529 F. Supp. 2d 1342 · District Court, M.D. Florida · Dec 20, 2007

QUALIFIED IMMUNITY Irrespective of whether Plaintiff Sharp could establish a prima facie case for malicious prosecution, the Court finds Defendants Getchell and Griffith are entitled to qualified immunity under both common … Under the broader standard of arguable probable cause, Defendants Getchell and Griffith are clearly entitled to qualified immunity from the tort of malicious prosecution.

Andre v. Castor

963 F. Supp. 1169 · District Court, M.D. Florida · May 7, 1997

The challenged order (Docket No. 42) clearly and unambiguously stated that this Court was deferring a ruling on the issue of qualified immunity (p.15). … Even if the defendants were to convince the circuit court that this Court erred in its decision to defer ruling on whether the complaint alleges a violation of clearly established law, the appellate remedy would be a remand

DeRosa v. Rambosk

732 F. Supp. 2d 1285 · District Court, M.D. Florida · Aug 11, 2010

“Qualified immunity offers complete protection for government officials sued in their individual capacities when acting within their discretionary authority if their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory … Kathleen has also satisfied the second step of the qualified immunity inquiry, since at the time of the arrest it was “clearly established that an arrest made without probable cause violates the Fourth Amendment.”

Davis v. City of Apopka

356 F. Supp. 3d 1366 · District Court, M.D. Florida · Dec 21, 2018

Second, the examination in Cozzi turned on the less stringent arguable probable cause standard and was a qualified immunity evaluation. … See id. at 1293 (noting that "an officer may be entitled to qualified immunity even if there was no actual probable cause for the arrest").

Mitchell v. Lealman Volunteer Fire Co.

985 F. Supp. 1436 · District Court, M.D. Florida · Sep 30, 1996

However, a terminable-at-will employment relationship fails to constitute a clearly established property interest. 7 Ac *1440 cordingly, Lealman is qualifiedly immune from any claims associated with its decisions to either … The parties agree that qualified immunity precludes the plaintiffs’ claims against these defendants.

Wolk v. Seminole County, Fla.

510 F. Supp. 2d 786 · District Court, M.D. Florida · Feb 16, 2007

Defendants assert the defense of qualified immunity. 2 The purpose of qualified immunity is to “allow government officials to carry out their discretionary duties without the fear of personal liability or harassing litigation … Thus, ... material issues of disputed fact are not a factor in the court's analysis of qualified immunity and cannot foreclose the grant or denial of summary judgment based on qualified immunity. ... Robinson v.

Chingarev v. Rambosk

District Court, M.D. Florida · Sep 20, 2023

“That means that if a defendant raises the affirmative defense of qualified immunity, the district court must dismiss any claims that do not allege a violation of clearly established law.” Id. … “Qualified immunity ‘shields a government official from liability unless he violates “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.”’” Id. (quoting Piazza v.

Christie ex rel. Estate of Christie v. Scott

923 F. Supp. 2d 1308 · District Court, M.D. Florida · Jan 9, 2013

Qualified Immunity ■ [30] The remaining Corrections Defendants can avoid liability for the deliberate indifference claim if they can establish that they are entitled to qualified immunity. … The Corrections Defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity on the record before the Court. 2.

Crenshaw v. Lister

566 F. Supp. 2d 1334 · District Court, M.D. Florida · Jul 15, 2008

Qualified immunity offers complete protection for government officials sued in their individual capacities “as long as their conduct does not violate clearly established ... constitutional rights of which a reasonable person … To defeat defendants’ claim of qualified immunity, plaintiff must establish two elements.

Drudge v. City of Kissimmee

581 F. Supp. 2d 1176 · District Court, M.D. Florida · Sep 25, 2008

“The defense of qualified immunity completely protects government officials performing discretionary functions from suit in their individual capacities unless their conduct violates ‘clearly established statutory or constitutional … Although Sergeant Lanphere argues in his summary judgment motion that the statutory interpretation issue pertains to the “clearly established” prong of the Saucier qualified immunity test (see Doc. 41 at 15), my conclusion

Clemons v. Hardee County School Board

848 F. Supp. 1535 · District Court, M.D. Florida · Apr 4, 1994

Good Faith Immunity Defendants Burns and Gibbs assert qualified immunity based on their good faith effort in performance of their official acts within the Hardee School Board. … Unless Defendants acted in good faith and followed established School Board policy, they do not qualify for immunity.

Singleton v. McDougall

932 F. Supp. 1386 · District Court, M.D. Florida · Jun 28, 1996

To dispense with the qualified immunity claim, Plaintiff bears the burden of showing that Defendant allegedly violated “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known. … In the absence of a clearly established right, Defendant had no clear duty to act.