Case law

Simmons v. Walker

District Court, S.D. Illinois · May 19, 2023

Alternatively, Walker argues she is entitled to qualified immunity because it was clearly established at the time that (1) she was not personally responsible for the deprivation of Simmons’ constitutional rights; (2) the … Prison officials “are entitled to qualified immunity from liability arising out of conduct that does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.”

KEITH NELSON v. SUSAN SCHNIERS, PATRICK GONVALVES, and NURSE TARA

District Court, S.D. Illinois · Jan 21, 2026

Specifically, Defendant Nurse Tara argues that the Plaintiff’s complaint against her must be dismissed for three reasons: (1) the complaint fails to establish she was personally involved; (2) she is entitled to qualified … Litscher, 267 F.3d 648, 651 (7th Cir. 2001) (noting that courts hesitate to dismiss complaints on qualified immunity grounds “[b]ecause an immunity defense usually depends on the facts of the case” beyond the

Merritt v. Minor

District Court, S.D. Illinois · Mar 9, 2020

Qualified Immunity Qualified immunity shields “government officials from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory … (2) whether the right at issue was clearly established at the time of the alleged misconduct.

Hardy v. Illinois Department of Corrections

District Court, S.D. Illinois · Feb 24, 2020

Qualified Immunity The undersigned also finds that Defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity. … “Generally, qualified immunity protects government agents from liability when their actions do not violate ‘clearly established statutory or constitutional violations of which a reasonable person would have known.’”

Grynberg v. U.S. Dep't of Justice

302 F. Supp. 3d 532 · District Court, S.D. Illinois · Feb 1, 2018

The Government asserts that this limited request was not clearly established and that it assumed Grynberg continued to press his request for the entire Giffen file. … -Swiss MLAT establishes a particular type of matter to be withheld.

Rayford v. Chester Mental Health Center

District Court, S.D. Illinois · Mar 3, 2025

Qualified Immunity The Defendants also argue that they are protected by qualified immunity because “the record in this case demonstrates that Defendants did not violate … “To overcome qualified immunity, the facts viewed in the light most favorable to [the plaintiff] must ‘show that the defendant[s] violated a constitutional right’ and that ‘the right was clearly established at [that] time

Jenkins

District Court, S.D. Illinois · Feb 24, 2026

Jenkins then details a series of events that he claims, “qualify as predicates for a racketeering enterprise.” (Id.). … Jenkins concludes that Judge Wilkerson issued the search warrant for his truck knowing that Agent Cook had fabricated evidence and used perjured testimony from Officer Ward, violating clearly established law.

Maxey

District Court, S.D. Illinois · Mar 27, 2026

“Qualified immunity attaches when an official’s conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” White v. … ) whether the right at issue was clearly established at the time of the alleged misconduct.

Belk, Sr. v. Watson

District Court, S.D. Illinois · May 4, 2023

Qualified immunity is an affirmative defense that shields government officials from liability for civil damages where their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable … The qualified immunity test has two prongs: (1) whether the officer violated a constitutional right, and (2) whether the right at issue was clearly established at the time of the alleged misconduct.

Brown v. Watson

District Court, S.D. Illinois · Apr 4, 2024

Qualified immunity is an affirmative defense that shields government officials from liability for civil damages where their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable … The qualified immunity test has two prongs: (1) whether the official violated a constitutional right, and (2) whether the right at issue was clearly established at the time of the alleged misconduct.

Novick v. Vill. of Wappingers Falls

376 F. Supp. 3d 318 · District Court, S.D. Illinois · Mar 27, 2019

As pled, Plaintiff's request to be placed at headquarters for the duration of his cancer treatment is a plausible "accommodation, the costs of which, facially, do not *339 clearly exceed its benefits." … Under this test, the Plaintiff must first establish a prima facie case of discrimination under the ADA and NYSHRL § 296.

Simo Holdings Inc. v. Hong Kong Ucloudlink Network Tech. Ltd.

376 F. Supp. 3d 369 · District Court, S.D. Illinois · Apr 25, 2019

Defendants do not dispute that this limitation is satisfied, and it clearly is. … Defendants make no argument that this limitation is not met, and it clearly is.

Alvarado-Gonzalez v. Thompson

District Court, S.D. Illinois · Mar 31, 2023

The defense of qualified immunity generally “protects government agents from liability when their actions do not violate ‘clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known … To defeat a defense of qualified immunity, the plaintiff must show that the facts demonstrate “a violation of a constitutional right,” and that the “constitutional right was clearly established at the time of the alleged

Montgomery v. Centralia Correctional Center

District Court, S.D. Illinois · Oct 2, 2020

Qualified Immunity Defendant seeks judgment in his favor on the defense of qualified immunity because Defendant argues that he did not violate Plaintiff’s constitutional … Qualified immunity shields “government officials from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have

Bankston v. IDOC

District Court, S.D. Illinois · Sep 14, 2020

Summary Judgment – Count I Denial of Religious Services Defendants argue that they are entitled to qualified immunity as to Count I because Bankston has no clearly established right for inmate-led … To defeat Defendants’ qualified immunity defense, the burden is on Bankston to demonstrate that the alleged violation of the Free Exercise Clause right was “clearly established.” Kemp v.

Gaddis v. Demattei

District Court, S.D. Illinois · Apr 9, 2024

“Beyond debate,” in turn, means clearly established law shares specific details with the facts of the case. Id. (citing White v. … issue, mindful that we cannot define clearly established law at too high a level of generality.’ ”).

Holmon v. Hawkins

District Court, S.D. Illinois · Mar 25, 2021

Qualified Immunity Hawkins argues that she is entitled to qualified Immunity, because Plaintiff cannot establish that she violated his Eighth Amendment rights. … Qualified immunity “protects government agents from liability when their actions do not violate ‘clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.’” Hernandez v.

Pitts, Jr. v. Lashbrook

District Court, S.D. Illinois · Oct 20, 2022

QUALIFIED IMMUNITY Qualified immunity shields “government officials from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … (2) whether the right at issue was clearly established at the time of the alleged misconduct.

Hoskins v. Swisher

District Court, S.D. Illinois · Jul 31, 2023

immunity, which is a doctrine that “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 … In other words, qualified immunity does not shield a government official if the alleged conduct violates a right that was clearly established at the time. Thayer v. Chiczewski, 705 F.3d 237, 253 (7th Cir. 2012).

Murphy v. Siddiqui

District Court, S.D. Illinois · Mar 22, 2024

Qualified Immunity Crain claims that she is also entitled to summary judgment under a theory of qualified immunity, even if she was deliberately indifferent. … A state official such as Crain is protected by qualified immunity unless Murphy shows “(1) that the official violated a statutory or constitutional right, and (2) that the right was ‘clearly established’ at the time of