Case law

Holloman v. Clarke

236 F. Supp. 3d 493 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Feb 23, 2017

Prosecutorial Immunity Prosecutors are afforded two kinds of immunity in suits brought under 28 U.S.C. § 1983 : absolute and qualified. Kalina v. Fletcher, 522 U.S. 118, 118 , 118 S.Ct. 502 , 139 L.Ed.2d 471 (1997). … The burden is on the defendant to establish which, if either, immunity applies. Buckley v. Fitzsimmons, 509 U.S. 259, 269 , 113 S.Ct. 2606 , 125 L.Ed.2d 209 (1993).

Cole v. Snow

586 F. Supp. 655 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · May 9, 1984

were entitled to a “qualified immunity” defense. … Assuming that the issue of subjective knowledge is still a part of the qualified immunity defense, this court finds that the evidence did not establish that Snow knew that his actions violated clearly established constitutional

Comeau v. Town of Webster

881 F. Supp. 2d 177 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Jul 24, 2012

Defendant Purcell seeks cover under the doctrine of qualified immunity. Qualified immunity shields public officials from suit, and is not a mere defense to liability. Mitchell v. … Likewise, it may be that Purcell performed his duties reasonably and is granted qualified immunity.

Klaucke v. Daly

592 F. Supp. 2d 222 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Jan 13, 2009

Even assuming that the actions of Defendant in some way violated Plaintiffs Constitutional rights (which they did not), Defendant would be entitled to qualified immunity. … Put differently, the “rights” Plaintiff attempts to invoke in this lawsuit certainly were not clearly established as of the date of the incident. Saucier v.

Candela Corp. v. Regents of the University of California

976 F. Supp. 90 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Sep 25, 1997

Standing alone, such a “qualified removal” might not rise to the level of an “unequivocal” waiver of immunity. … By removing the action, answering the complaint, counterclaiming, and opposing a motion to remand on immunity grounds, the Regents has clearly and un *93 equivocally waived its Eleventh Amendment immunity to suit in the present

Felton v. Lincoln

429 F. Supp. 2d 226 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Mar 17, 2006

Qualified Immunity Finally, the defendants have each moved for summary judgment on the grounds of qualified immunity. … Qualified immunity shields government officials performing discretionary functions from liability for civil damages when “their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable

Miller v. Roycroft

District Court, D. Massachusetts · Mar 31, 2024

Qualified Immunity The doctrine of qualified immunity shields government officials from liability for civil damages if their conduct “does not violate clearly established … Clearly Established Right The Court now turns to the clearly established prong of qualified immunity.

Cameron v. Fair

887 F. Supp. 387 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · May 25, 1995

a strip search, there is still a question of whether qualified immunity bars this action against Noonan, Fair and DaSilva. … The magistrate judge did not consider the defendants’ argument that they are protected by qualified immunity.

O'Connor v. Spain

84 F. Supp. 3d 60 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Feb 5, 2015

Even assuming a constitutional violation, however, Defendant is entitled to qualified immunity and therefore the Court will enter summary judgment on Count II. 3 Qualified immunity provides *66 public officials “breathing … To overcome a public official’s qualified immunity defense in a § 1983 suit, a plaintiff must show that the violation of her constitutional right was “clearly established” at the time of the violation.

Hall v. Ochs

623 F. Supp. 367 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Nov 27, 1985

Farrell, at 6 *374 (“The district court erred when it stated ‘the issue of qualified immunity is almost universally one which presents a question of fact to be determined by the trier of fact.’ ... … “Factual disputes will result in denial of summary judgment” and in submission of the case to the jury “when they are relevant to the qualified immunity defense----” Floyd , at 6.

Quarterman v. City of Springfield

716 F. Supp. 2d 67 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Sep 28, 2009

Defendants’ Immunity Defendants argue that they are entitled to qualified and/or absolute immunity against suits for damages under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981 and 1983. … Immunity Neither Defendant is entitled to absolute or qualified immunity on the remaining state law claims.

Cignetti v. Healy

89 F. Supp. 2d 106 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Mar 21, 2000

Prosecutors enjoy only qualified immunity from § 1983 liability as to their non-prosecu-torial activities. … Qualified immunity operates to shield government officials exercising discretionary powers from § 1983 liability "insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a

Namey v. Reilly

926 F. Supp. 5 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Apr 24, 1996

In light of Namey’s plea to the amended charge of possession, the first ground cited by Perry was clearly incorrect. … Metallo, 5 F.3d 583, 585 (1st Cir.1993) (parole officer received qualified immunity with respect to claim of unreasonable search); Galvan v.

City of Worcester v. HCA Management Co., Inc.

753 F. Supp. 31 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Nov 26, 1990

Qualified, rather than absolute, immunity applies when a federal employee violates an established constitutional rule, unless "absolute immunity is essential for the conduct of public business.” Butz v. … As the complaint in this case does not allege intentional misconduct by Blue Cross, this Court will not delve into the specific situations in which qualified immunity, instead of absolute immunity, will apply to the actions

Mattei v. Dunbar

217 F. Supp. 3d 367 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Nov 8, 2016

Qualified Immunity Qualified immunity protects government officials from liability for money damages only if the conduct at issue “does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable … The qualified immunity inquiry is a two-part test: a court must decide, first, whether the facts alleged show that the officer violated a right and, second, whether the right was “clearly established” at the time of the alleged

Philbrook v. Perrigo

637 F. Supp. 2d 48 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Jul 14, 2009

Qualified Immunity The defendants contend that, regardless of whether they violated rights protected under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 , qualified immunity shields them from any liability. … Qualified immunity exists where 1) the plaintiffs allegations make out a violation of a constitutionally protected right, 2) the right was clearly established at the time of the putative violation and 3) a reasonable public

Levine v. Clement

333 F. Supp. 2d 1 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Sep 1, 2004

Qualified Immunity Of all the issues raised by Plaintiff in his motion for partial summary judgment, qualified immunity is the only one Defendant addresses. … Defendant simply maintained that she is qualifiedly immune from suit. *6 Defendant’s assertion to the contrary, the court concludes that qualified immunity does not apply.- To determine whether qualified immunity is available

National Bank of Fairhaven v. United States

660 F. Supp. 125 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Mar 16, 1987

Individual federal employees possess qualified immunity from law suits for their actions taken in the course of their official duties. Fernandez v. Leonard, 784 F.2d 1209, 1214 (1st Cir.1986). … Finally, the Bank has not shown that any “clearly established” Due Process rights were violated. Consequently, Mr. Brooks is protected by qualified immunity.

Thomas v. Town of Chelmsford

267 F. Supp. 3d 279 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Jul 25, 2017

Qualified Immunity The individual defendants have asserted that they are protected by the doctrine of qualified immunity, “[T]he qualified immunity inquiry is a two-part test. … In recent years, the Supreme Court has published a.number of.per cu-riam reversals of denials of qualified immunity, emphasizing that “clearly established law” should not be defined “at a high level of generality.”

Mihos v. Swift

235 F. Supp. 2d 45 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Dec 17, 2002

complains violated clearly established law. … The standard for deciding issues concerning a public official’s qualified immunity ordinarily turns on whether the right in question “was clearly established when the harm-inducing conduct allegedly took place.”