Case law

Jones v. Han

993 F. Supp. 2d 57 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Jan 28, 2014

The qualified-immunity analysis employs a two-part test: (1) whether the facts alleged or shown by the plaintiff make out a violation of a constitutional right, and (2) whether the right at issue was clearly established at … “When a supervisor seeks qualified immunity in a § 1983 action, the ‘clearly established’ prong of the qualified immunity inquiry is satisfied when (1) the subordinate’s actions violated a clearly established constitutional

Rogers v. Cofield

908 F. Supp. 2d 277 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Dec 12, 2012

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER RE: QUALIFIED IMMUNITY MARIANNE B. BOWLER, United States Magistrate Judge. … was clearly established at the time of the defendant’s alleged violation.”

Sorano v. Taggart

642 F. Supp. 2d 45 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Jul 29, 2009

“Qualified immunity is an affirmative defense that shields government officials from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a … Qualified Immunity — The Merits “A government official performing a discretionary function is entitled to qualified immunity provided his or her ‘conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights

Walker v. Jackson

952 F. Supp. 2d 343 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Jul 8, 2013

Second, they argue that they have qualified immunity because the right at issue was not clearly established at the ■ time of their alleged violation. … The case law addressing supervisory liability is clearly established, and Sergeant Horan has not advanced any argument in support of qualified immunity. He is not entitled to dismissal of Count Y. v.

Facey v. Dickhaut

892 F. Supp. 2d 347 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Sep 25, 2012

Qualified Immunity The defendants assert that they are entitled to qualified immunity because the plaintiff has not alleged a violation of clearly established law. … The second prong of the qualified immunity analysis requires that the right have been clearly established at the time that it was allegedly violated. See Feliciano-Hernandez, 663 F.3d at 532 .

Suboh v. City of Revere, Mass.

141 F. Supp. 2d 124 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Mar 30, 2001

In light of its unclear boundaries and qualified nature, however, courts have been hesitant to hold that the abstract right to familial integrity is clearly established for the purposes of qualified immunity in the absence … immunity, based on a claim that the right to family integrity was not clearly established, will fail.

Soto v. Bzdel

214 F. Supp. 2d 69 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Jul 26, 2002

was clearly established at the time of the [official’s] alleged violation.” … If courts deciding § 1983 suits on the basis of qualified immunity were to tackle the difficult substantive law, then the law would become 'clearly established' so that officers presented with similar factual scenarios in

Higgins v. Town of Concord

246 F. Supp. 3d 502 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Mar 31, 2017

The Court cannot determine whether Hodges and Whelan are entitled to qualified immunity at this stage. The defendants argue ' that Hodges and Whelan are entitled to qualified immunity on Counts One and Two. … Callahan, 555 U.S. 223, 231 , 129 S.Ct. 808 , 172 L.Ed.2d 565 (2009) ("The doctrine of qualified immunity protects government officials from liability for civil damages insofar ‘as their conduct does not violate clearly established

Campbell v. Casey

166 F. Supp. 3d 144 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Feb 29, 2016

Defendant seeks summary judgment' due to qualified immunity as well as on the merits. a. … That right has been clearly established by the U.S. Supreme Court for decades.

Lynch v. City of Boston

989 F. Supp. 275 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Dec 9, 1997

A defense of qualified immunity ordinarily fails where the law that was violated was clearly established, “since a reasonably competent public official should know the law governing his conduct.” … depends on the concept of a “clearly established” right.

Morse v. Massachusetts Executive Office of Public Safety Department of State Police

123 F. Supp. 3d 179 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Aug 18, 2015

qualified immunity. … Therefore, to overcome Defendants’ qualified immunity defense, Plaintiffs must show that their rights were “clearly established” at the time of the violation.

Duhani v. Town of Grafton

52 F. Supp. 3d 176 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Sep 26, 2014

The qualified immunity analysis requires a court to decide ‘(1) whether the facts alleged or shown by the plaintiff make out a violation of a constitutional right; and (2) if so, whether the right was “clearly established … Since Duhani has failed to establish a violation of his constitutional right, Mclnerney is entitled to qualified immunity.

Haley v. City of Boston

677 F. Supp. 2d 379 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Dec 31, 2009

Qualified immunity attaches to discretionary conduct of government officials that “does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Harlow v. … If no constitutional right would have been violated were the allegations established, there is no necessity for further inquiries concerning qualified immunity.” Saucier v.

Foster v. McGrail

844 F. Supp. 16 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Jan 25, 1994

In addition, even if plaintiff succeeded in proving a prima facie claim for a state constitutional violation, he failed to overcome defendant’s qualified immunity as established *25 under state law. … is claiming “have violated a right under Federal or State constitutional or statutory law that was ‘clearly established’ at the time.”

Aceto v. Kachajian

240 F. Supp. 2d 121 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Jan 24, 2003

Overview of Qualified Immunity “Qualified immunity protects public officials from section 1983 civil liability so long *124 as they ‘acted reasonably under settled law in the circumstances.’ ” Veilleux v. … Clearly Established Right Because the factual allegations — if true — show defendants violated a constitutional right, the critical question is whether the constitutional right was clearly established.

Rose v. Town of Concord

971 F. Supp. 47 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Jul 15, 1997

Qualified immunity shields government officials from liability for civil damages when their actions “[do] not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” … An Officer’s “qualified immunity is pierced only if there clearly was no probable cause at the time the arrest was made.” Id.; see also Topp v. Wolkowski, 994 F.2d 45, 48 (1st Cir.1993).

Hathaway v. Stone

687 F. Supp. 708 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Jun 27, 1988

Even if it did, they further contend that they are entitled to qualified immunity. … As set out in Voutour , the standard for qualified immunity is whether a government official performing discretionary functions should reasonably have known that his or her actions violated clearly established statutory or

Ciolino v. Eastman

128 F. Supp. 3d 366 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Sep 3, 2015

Second Prong: Clearly Established Right The disputes of fact discussed above also preclude the Court from finding that the constitutional rights allegedly violated were not “clearly established,” such that Defendants would … be entitled to qualified immunity on the second prong of the test.

Barbosa v. Conlon

962 F. Supp. 2d 316 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Jun 10, 2013

Qualifíed Immunity — In General “The doctrine of qualified immunity protects government officials ‘from liability for civil damages insofar as then-conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … “[T]he second, ‘clearly established’ step of the qualified immunity analysis ... in turn, has two aspects.” Maldonado v. Fontanes, 568 F.3d 263, 269 (1st Cir.2009).

Masonoff v. DuBois

336 F. Supp. 2d 54 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Sep 17, 2004

To determine whether the defendants here are entitled to the shield of qualified immunity, I must inquire: “(1) whether the facts as alleged make out a constitutional violation; (2) whether that right was clearly established … Was the right clearly established?