Case law

Sydney Williams v. Jamie L. Bramblett, in her individual capacity, Glenn Curry, in his individual capacity, Angela Kramp, in her individual capacity, Camelot Care Centers, LLC, Erin Helmholz, and Kathy Henke

District Court, C.D. Illinois · Jan 5, 2026

Qualified Immunity “[Qlualified immunity protects government officials ‘from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … immunity because the alleged constitutional violation will rarely ~ if ever-- be clearly established”).

Siebert v. Severino

97 F. Supp. 2d 882 · District Court, C.D. Illinois · May 24, 2000

Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 818-19 , 102 S.Ct. 2727 , 73 L.Ed.2d 396 (1982) (even if the law is clearly established, an official is entitled to qualified immunity if he neither knew or should have known of the relevant legal … prevail on her due process claim because Severino violated clearly established constitutional law.

Reeves v. The City of Springfield

District Court, C.D. Illinois · Oct 1, 2025

right was clearly established at the time of the alleged violation. … But where the law was clearly established, both qualified immunity questions must be addressed. Id.

Dyjak v. Miller

District Court, C.D. Illinois · Mar 29, 2024

and (2) whether the right alleged to have been violated was clearly established. … Liebel, 877 F.3d 346 (7th Cir. 2017) (affirming qualified immunity, and holding that Turner merely creates a generalized framework to analyze claims and cannot create clearly established law

McMahon v. City of Beardstown

District Court, C.D. Illinois · Mar 25, 2024

But where the law was clearly established, both qualified immunity questions must be addressed. Id. … McMahon’s clearly established right to be free from unreasonable seizures. As a result, the Court cannot find that the Defendant is entitled to qualified immunity. See Nettles-Bey v.

Taylor

District Court, C.D. Illinois · Jun 8, 2026

that constitutional right was clearly established at the time of the alleged violation.” … What remains, then, is the second prong: whether the relevant rights were clearly established.

Clayborne v. Brown

District Court, C.D. Illinois · Mar 20, 2023

violation; and (2) the constitutional right was clearly established at the time of the alleged violation. … But where the law was clearly established, both qualified immunity questions must be addressed. Id.

Eilenfeldt ex rel. J.M. v. United C.U.S.D. 304 Board of Education

169 F. Supp. 3d 867 · District Court, C.D. Illinois · Mar 14, 2016

Qualified Immunity The doctrine of qualified immunity protects government officials from civil liability for their actions in the course of their duties “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory … However, once a claim of qualified immunity has been raised, a plaintiff also bears the burden of demonstrating the violation of a clearly established constitutional right of which a reasonable person would have known.

Hanson v. Sangamon County Sheriff's Department

991 F. Supp. 1059 · District Court, C.D. Illinois · Jan 28, 1998

Qualified immunity shields government officials who are performing discretionary functions from liability for civil damages “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights … Thus, Sheriff Williamson asserts that he is protected by qualified immunity because there were no clearly established constitutional standards on the date when the alleged violations occurred.

Van Dyke v. Washington

896 F. Supp. 183 · District Court, C.D. Illinois · Aug 3, 1995

However, "the defense of qualified immunity shields government officials performing discretionary functions `from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … and (2) whether the constitutional standards implicated were clearly established at the time in question.

Mellott v. Sprague

334 F. Supp. 3d 916 · District Court, C.D. Illinois · Jun 15, 2017

In order to defeat a defense of qualified immunity, Plaintiff must demonstrate that: (1) Defendants conduct violated his constitutional rights; and (2) the violated rights were clearly established at the time of the alleged … This right had been clearly established since, at the latest, 1990.

Weicherding v. Riegel

981 F. Supp. 1143 · District Court, C.D. Illinois · Oct 30, 1997

Qualified immunity protects a state official’s discretionary actions so long as the official’s actions co not violate clearly established rights of which a reasonable person would have known. Id. … In the qualified immunity context, this Court must determine whether, at the time Plaintiff was discharged, it was clearly established that his interest outweighed the State’s interest. Gregorich, 54 F.3d at 416 .

Walsh v. Ward

757 F. Supp. 959 · District Court, C.D. Illinois · Mar 1, 1991

Qualified Immunity Defendants’ final argument in support of their motion to dismiss is that, to the extent they are sued in their individual capacities, they are immune from liability pursuant to the doctrine of qualified … In short, the “qualified immunity analysis entails a purely objective inquiry to determine whether at the time of the alleged illegal act, the right asserted by the plaintiff was clearly established in the particular factual

Lamb v. City of Decatur

947 F. Supp. 1261 · District Court, C.D. Illinois · Nov 19, 1996

“It is the plaintiff who bears the burden of establishing the existence of the allegedly clearly established constitutional right.” Rice v. Burks, 999 F.2d 1172, 1174 (7th Cir.1993). … The Decatur police do not qualify for immunity.

Mutter v. Sanders

611 F. Supp. 2d 837 · District Court, C.D. Illinois · May 4, 2009

immunity because their alleged conduct was not clearly established to be violative of the Plaintiffs’ constitutional rights. … Qualified immunity (1) The Defendants contend that they are entitled to qualified immunity as to the federal claims included in Count 1 of the complaint because it was not clearly established that Sanders violated the Plaintiffs

DeMont v. Bebber

871 F. Supp. 2d 802 · District Court, C.D. Illinois · May 22, 2012

immunity from liability under § 1983 because his alleged conduct did not violate DeMont’s clearly established constitutional rights. … Qualified immunity shields “government actors from liability for civil damages when their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have been aware.

Walker v. Benjamin

100 F. Supp. 2d 901 · District Court, C.D. Illinois · Jun 8, 2000

A public official is entitled to qualified immunity if his conduct “does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known”. … Benjamin’s conduct violated clearly established constitutional or statutory rights and she is entitled to qualified immunity. Harlow, 457 U.S. at 818 , 102 S.Ct. 2727 .

Pauli v. Farmington Cent. Com. School Dist. 265

841 F. Supp. 840 · District Court, C.D. Illinois · Jan 12, 1994

Qualified Immunity Defendants have moved for summary judgment on the basis' that they are entitled to qualified immunity from Plaintiffs’ claims. … This Court finds that Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity from this claim.

Wernsing v. Thompson

286 F. Supp. 2d 983 · District Court, C.D. Illinois · Oct 9, 2003

Qualified Immunity Thompson also argues that he is entitled to qualified immunity. In Harlow v. … established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known and is therefore not exempt from suit under the doctrine of qualified immunity.

Wittmer v. Peters

904 F. Supp. 845 · District Court, C.D. Illinois · Oct 20, 1995

Therefore, since Plaintiffs have failed to carry their burden of establishing that Defendants were on notice that their actions violated clearly established law, Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity. … Regardless, because there is no clearly established authority that could have placed Defendants on notice that their actions violated the law (assuming they did in fact violate the law), qualified immunity shields Defendants