Case law

Jones v. Edguardo A. Consuegra's Estate

338 F. Supp. 2d 1282 · District Court, M.D. Florida · Sep 22, 2004

Qualified Immunity Defendant Radi contends that he is entitled to qualified immunity from damages. The Eleventh Circuit has reviewed the qualified immunity principles. … The Supreme Court has established a two-part test to determine the applicability of qualified immunity.

Sheets

District Court, M.D. Florida · Feb 20, 2026

Berry is a district court case, so it “cannot clearly establish the law for qualified immunity purposes.” Gaines, 871 F.3d at 1211; see also Jackson v. McCurry, 762 F. App’x 919, 928 (11th Cir. 2019). … Because Sheets has not shown that Officer Angelini violated a clearly established right by enforcing a straightforward noise restriction, qualified immunity must apply here.

Reilly v. The School District of Lee County, Florida

District Court, M.D. Florida · Oct 2, 2024

establish the law for qualified immunity purposes. … Moving on to prong two of the qualified immunity analysis, Plaintiffs bear the burden to “establish that the [D]efendant[s] violated clearly established law.” Harbert Int’l v.

American Ass'n of People with Disabilities v. Smith

227 F. Supp. 2d 1276 · District Court, M.D. Florida · Oct 16, 2002

Instead, Defendants Smith and East contend that they have the discretion to adopt rules that establish minimum standards for voting systems. … While the common-law legislative immunity available to state and local legislators is not always as broad as the immunity provided to members of Congress under the Speech or Debate Clause, in civil eases, the immunities appear

Curry

District Court, M.D. Florida · Feb 18, 2026

Qualified Immunity Finally, Thorne argues that qualified immunity bars Curry’s claim against him. (Doc. 32 at 5-6). … “Qualified immunity protects government officials from individual liability unless they violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.”

Roca Labs, Inc. v. Consumer Opinion Corp.

140 F. Supp. 3d 1311 · District Court, M.D. Florida · Oct 21, 2015

“The majority of ‘federal circuits have interpreted the CDA to establish broad federal immunity to any cause of action that would make service providers liable for information originating with a third-party user of the service … The Court now addresses the remaining two elements of establishing immunity under Section 230 of the CDA. ii.

Timothee

District Court, M.D. Florida · Aug 26, 2026

Thus, as explained above, a motion to dismiss on qualified-immunity grounds “will be granted if the complaint fails to allege the violation of a clearly established constitutional right.” St. … Even with that favorable assumption, Defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity because their alleged conduct violated clearly established rights. See Resendiz v. Christian, 830 F. Supp. 3d 1226, 1239 (N.D.

Cramer v. State of Florida

885 F. Supp. 1545 · District Court, M.D. Florida · May 10, 1995

Thus, in order to state a claim under the ADA, a plaintiff must first establish that he is a “qualified individual with a disability.” … The Court noted that “the law governing § 504 did not clearly establish an obligation to meet the plaintiffs particular needs vis-a-vis the needs of other handicapped individuals, but mandated only that services provided

Rojas v. City of Ocala

315 F. Supp. 3d 1256 · District Court, M.D. Florida · May 24, 2018

"Qualified immunity protects government officials performing discretionary functions from suits in their individual capacities unless their conduct violates clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which … Even assuming the Mayor committed an Establishment Clause violation by failing to intervene to stop the Prayer Vigil, his duty to do so was not clearly established. 40 The Mayor is protected by qualified immunity based on

Tedesco v. Johnson

119 F. Supp. 2d 1320 · District Court, M.D. Florida · Nov 7, 2000

Qualified Immunity Even if Plaintiff could somehow show that Defendants’ actions violated his constitutional rights, Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity from Plaintiffs claims for money damages against them in their … Qualified immunity bars claims for money damages against government actors sued in their individual capacities “if their conduct violates no clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person

Berry

District Court, M.D. Florida · Dec 3, 2025

“[A] police officer is entitled to qualified immunity if a reasonable police officer could have believed his or her actions were lawful in light of clearly established law and the information … When considering qualified immunity for malicious prosecution claims, the court also reviews for arguable probable cause and whether the law was clearly established. Prospero v.

Swofford v. Eslinger

686 F. Supp. 2d 1277 · District Court, M.D. Florida · Nov 30, 2009

Swofford’s rights were not clearly established. Therefore, the Court found that Defendants Morris and Remus were entitled to qualified immunity on Mr. Swofford’s unlawful entry claim. … Because reasonable officers could differ on this issue, the Court found that the Officers were entitled to qualified immunity; however, the SCSO is not so immunized.

McNa v. Communications Inter-Local Agency

551 F. Supp. 2d 1343 · District Court, M.D. Florida · Mar 12, 2008

Defendants also argue that the section 1983 claims against Bubb and Cox in their individual capacities must be dismissed because they are entitled to qualified immunity. (Doc. No. 21 at 11-12.) A. … Qualified Immunity Because the section 1983 claims against Bubb and Cox fail to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, it is unnecessary to consider whether qualified immunity applies. IV.

Tasis v. Marceno

District Court, M.D. Florida · Apr 22, 2025

At the motion-to-dismiss stage, the Court must find entitlement to qualified immunity and dismiss “if the complaint fails to allege the violation of a clearly established right.” Id. … Instead, he seems to argue that a “broader, clearly established principle” defeats qualified immunity. Id. (quoting Keating, 598 F.3d at 766).

L.S.T. Inc. v. Crow

834 F. Supp. 1355 · District Court, M.D. Florida · Oct 5, 1993

As basis therefor, Defendants assert that probable cause existed for the arrests from which these charges flow, and thus, they are entitled to a qualified immunity from liability under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 . … As basis therefor, Defendants assert that probable cause existed for the arrests of April 15, 1990 and May 6, 1990, and as such, Defendants are entitled to a qualified immunity from liability under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 .

Cozort v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance

233 F.R.D. 674 · District Court, M.D. Florida · Jun 3, 2005

Thus, the immunity is qualified and, under the traditional Rule 26 analysis, the items are discoverable upon a sufficient showing of substantial need and undue hardship. See Hickman v. … These documents should be clearly identified as post-coverage litigation documents on the amended privilege log, and described with sufficient specificity to allow for evaluation of the applicability of any such privilege

Athanas

District Court, M.D. Florida · Jun 25, 2026

“To overcome qualified immunity, the plaintiff must show both that (1) the defendant violated a constitutional right, and (2) this right was clearly established at the time of the alleged violation.”7 Crider v. … Sheehan, 575 U.S. 600, 613 (2015) (“Qualified immunity is no immunity at all if ‘clearly established’ law can simply be defined as the right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures.”).

Dustin Kenney and Jill Kenney, as parents and natural guardians of D.K., a minor v. Collier County School Board, Jorge Badillo, and Ashley Coloma

District Court, M.D. Florida · May 26, 2026

“Qualified immunity offers complete protection for government officials sued in their individual capacities if their conduct ‘does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable … Because Plaintiffs fail to demonstrate a violation of a clearly established constitutional right, Badillo and Coloma are entitled to qualified immunity, and the Court dismisses count II with prejudice.

MacIntyre v. City of Palm Bay

District Court, M.D. Florida · Mar 6, 2025

Accordingly, “[t]o survive a motion to dismiss based upon qualified immunity, the plaintiff must have alleged sufficient facts to support a finding of a constitutional violation of a clearly established law.” … “[A]n entitlement to qualified immunity ‘raised . . . on a motion to dismiss . . . will be granted if the complaint fails to allege the violation of a clearly established constitutional right.’”

Peek v. McCormick

District Court, M.D. Florida · Aug 14, 2025

“Generally speaking, it is proper to grant a motion to dismiss on qualified immunity grounds when the ‘complaint fails to allege the violation of a clearly established constitutional right.” Corbitt _v. … A right may be clearly established for qualified - immunity purposes in one of three ways: (1) case law with indistinguishable facts clearly establishing the constitutional right