Case law

King v. City of Indianapolis

969 F. Supp. 2d 1085 · District Court, S.D. Indiana · Aug 29, 2013

Qualified Immunity “Governmental actors performing discretionary functions are entitled to qualified immunity from suits for damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … King’s right was not clearly established and Defendant Officers are granted qualified immunity on this claim. 2. Fourth Amendment Defendants contend that the seizure of Mr.

MCCLOUD v. VANSHOYCK

District Court, S.D. Indiana · Jan 19, 2024

Defendants Holt, Donovan, Barlow, Hall, and Nicholson all argue that they are entitled to qualified immunity because there is not a clearly established right to an additional decontamination shower beyond … "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.

Hendricks v. New Albany Police Department

749 F. Supp. 2d 863 · District Court, S.D. Indiana · Nov 1, 2010

“The doctrine of qualified immunity protects government officials from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not *870 violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable … The applicability of qualified immunity is determined by a two-part inquiry established in Saucier v. Katz, 533 U.S. 194 , 121 S.Ct. 2151 , 150 L.Ed.2d 272 (2001).

Stovall v. McAtee

35 F. Supp. 2d 1125 · District Court, S.D. Indiana · Sep 24, 1997

In denying defendant’s qualified immunity motion, the district court concluded that Thomas v. Pate had clearly established the right at issue. This reliance was misplaced. As noted above, Thomas v. … When a defense of qualified immunity is raised, the plaintiff has the burden of showing that the right he invokes was “clearly established” at the relevant time with sufficient specificity under the circumstances.

West v. Phillips

883 F. Supp. 308 · District Court, S.D. Indiana · Aug 26, 1994

The Applicability of Qualified Immunity to the Defendants The Supreme Court established the modern doctrine of qualified immunity in Harlow v. Fitzgerald, supra. … The test for determining qualified immunity in Harlow, Anderson, and Casteel focuses on the violation of a “clearly established” constitutional right, not a “clearly established” affirmative defense. 11 In support of her

Day v. City of Indianapolis

380 F. Supp. 3d 812 · District Court, S.D. Indiana · May 13, 2019

Qualified immunity shields public officials from civil liability for acts done in their official capacity, insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights to which a reasonable … The law has clearly established this conduct as violative and therefore precludes the officers from qualified immunity.

TULLIS v. KNIGHT

District Court, S.D. Indiana · Feb 9, 2023

Additionally, even if a reasonable jury could find an Eighth Amendment violation, the Defendants are entitled to summary judgment on qualified immunity grounds because Tullis has not shown a clearly established right to … Pauly. 137 S.Ct. 548, 551 (2017) ("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."

Lockard v. CITY OF LAWRENCEBURG, IND.

815 F. Supp. 2d 1034 · District Court, S.D. Indiana · Sep 6, 2011

In the end, the Seventh Circuit did not reach the clearly established prong for purposes of determining qualified immunity. Id. at 377 . Moreover, at the time of Mr. … Nonetheless, the district court granted summary judgment in favor of defendant, relying on the “clearly established” qualified immunity prong. Id.

Estate of Bryant by Bryant v. Buchanan

883 F. Supp. 1222 · District Court, S.D. Indiana · Apr 27, 1995

QUALIFIED IMMUNITY Police officers who use force in making an arrest are entitled to qualified immunity from suits for damages under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory … Were the Constitutional Standards Clearly Established? Plaintiff bears the burden of establishing the existence of a clearly established constitutional right. Kernats, 35 F.3d at 1176.

Estate of Williams v. Indiana State Police

26 F. Supp. 3d 824 · District Court, S.D. Indiana · Jun 13, 2014

Qualified Immunity “[Qualified immunity is immunity from suit rather than a mere defense to liability.” Estate of Miller, ex rel. Bertram v. … Qualified immunity for the deficient plan claim.

Gutierrez v. City of Indianapolis

886 F. Supp. 2d 984 · District Court, S.D. Indiana · Aug 13, 2012

Under the doctrine of qualified immunity, police officers are shielded “from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable … Qualified Immunity Defendants assert that Officer Kermon is entitled to qualified immunity with respect to Mr. Gutierrez’s excessive force claim.

Thompson v. City of Indianapolis

208 F. Supp. 3d 968 · District Court, S.D. Indiana · Sep 22, 2016

Clearly Established Right The Plaintiffs’ Fourth Amendment rights must also be clearly established. … and Zotz were so clearly excessive to defeat the claim for qualified immunity.

Fidler v. City of Indianapolis

428 F. Supp. 2d 857 · District Court, S.D. Indiana · Apr 20, 2006

A government official is not entitled to qualified immunity where the facts plaintiff alleges (1) reveal a constitutional violation (2) according to “clearly established” law at the time, meaning that a reasonable officer … Accordingly, qualified immunity is not available at this stage in the case. Morfin v.

Ellis v. City of Indianapolis

800 F. Supp. 733 · District Court, S.D. Indiana · Jul 24, 1992

clearly established. … Qualified Immunity Defense Applies to Wynalda’s Conduct The question whether qualified immunity attaches to an officer’s conduct is always one for the judge to decide. Simkunas v.

Pennington v. Hobson

719 F. Supp. 760 · District Court, S.D. Indiana · Aug 4, 1989

Only those public officials who can show that their conduct was not violative of any of the plaintiffs clearly established rights are entitled to qualified immunity. Harlow v. … In the qualified immunity analysis, the issue was whether a reasonable police officer would have known that the arrest violated clearly established law.

Marten v. Swain

242 F. Supp. 3d 744 · District Court, S.D. Indiana · Mar 16, 2017

right, and the designated evidence does not show a violation of any clearly established constitutional right. … As additional bases to defeat qualified immunity, the Martens also assert that Swain violated their clearly established constitutional rights by providing false testimony during the proceedings to further the criminal cases

Trust & Investment Advisors, Inc. v. Hogsett

830 F. Supp. 463 · District Court, S.D. Indiana · Apr 8, 1993

TIA argues that neither are the defendants entitled to qualified immunity, because Count One is for declarative and injunctive relief and Dant had to have known that she was violating TIA’s clearly established rights. … TIA has failed to allege facts which, if proven, would demonstrate that Dant’s actions were objectively unreasonable or violated TIA’s clearly established rights. Dant is thus entitled to qualified immunity.

Lewis v. McCracken

782 F. Supp. 2d 702 · District Court, S.D. Indiana · Mar 21, 2011

Qualified Immunity We turn next to the issue of qualified immunity protections, if any, available to Chief McCracken. … Qualified immunity shields McCracken from individual liability under Section 1983 for actions taken by him in the course of his performance of his discretionary functions, unless his conduct violated clearly established statutory

BALLHEIMER v. BATTS

District Court, S.D. Indiana · Mar 20, 2020

The qualified immunity analysis poses two questions: (1) whether a defendant violated a constitutional right, and (2) whether the right was clearly established at the 11 This determination hinges on the assumption that … If the warrant was not properly procured, the Officers cannot find protection under qualified immunity for violating Ballheimer’s clearly established right against a warrantless, intrusive medical search. Winston v.

Clark v. Donahue

885 F. Supp. 1164 · District Court, S.D. Indiana · Apr 27, 1995

were not clearly established at the time in question. … Accordingly, whether a right was sufficiently clearly established for purposes of invoking qualified immunity is a question of law. Marshall, 984 F.2d at 793 .