Case law

Dusenberry v. Commonwealth of Massachusetts

District Court, D. Massachusetts · Jun 6, 2023

established for the purposes of qualified immunity. … Whether a public employee’s speech is entitled to First Amendment protections and thus, “clearly established” for the function of qualified immunity requires this Court to engage in

Abubardar v. Henriquez

District Court, D. Massachusetts · Jun 7, 2021

immunity because plaintiff’s claimed constitutional rights were not clearly established. … Clearly Established Law The second prong of the qualified immunity analysis “focuses on whether [an] officer had fair notice that [his] conduct

Horan v. Cabral

277 F. Supp. 3d 229 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Sep 29, 2017

Although Cabral raised a qualified immunity defense in her motion to dismiss memorandum, (Mem. of Law in Supp. of Andrea Cabral’s Mot. to Dismiss, 7 (dirt. no. 32)), a discussion of that defense is unnecessary given that … See Feliciano-Hernández, 663 F.3d at 533 (“The first prong of the [qualified] immunity analysis requires that a plaintiff state a claim of violation of a constitutional right.”).

Glanz v. Vernick

750 F. Supp. 39 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Nov 1, 1990

Vadnais claimed that the defendants refused to perform elective ear surgery on him because he had tested positive for Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV), associated with Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome (AIDS). Mr. … Vadnais was “otherwise qualified” for surgery, and that the defendants qualify as “any program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance.”

Bixby v. Rehoboth, Town of

District Court, D. Massachusetts · Dec 4, 2024

In this context, however, the second aspect of the qualified immunity inquiry is “refined further” in that: [t]he ‘clearly established’ inquiry as to supervisors is bifurcated and is satisfied … If the constitutional right and the availability of supervisory liability that underlie a plaintiff’s § 1983 claim are both clearly established, the qualified immunity analysis ‘reduces to the test of objective legal

Cosenza v. City of Worcester

District Court, D. Massachusetts · Jan 2, 2019

Defendants argue that the caselaw demonstrates Plaintiff’s right was not clearly established and they are therefore entitled to qualified immunity. … clearly established right.”

Gonzalez v. Dooling

98 F. Supp. 3d 135 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Mar 23, 2015

Id. at 205, 121 S.Ct. 2151 (discussing qualified immunity in the context of a § 1983 excessive force claim). … Thus, Defendants assert the mistake of placing Plaintiff on CPSL was reasonable and, therefore, they are entitled to qualified immunity.

Robertson

District Court, D. Massachusetts · Oct 31, 2025

right; and (2) that right was clearly established at the time of the challenged conduct such that a reasonable official would have known the conduct was unlawful. … the subjective deliberate indifference standard or overcome qualified immunity.

Nasir v. Town of Foxborough

District Court, D. Massachusetts · Feb 7, 2022

Whether That Right Was Clearly Established Even if the Officers did violate a constitutional right, qualified immunity shields them from liability if that right was not clearly established. … Qualified immunity protects those that do “not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Conlogue v.

Rodrigues v. City of Brockton

District Court, D. Massachusetts · Sep 3, 2024

Qualified immunity is a judicial doctrine meant to shield public officials performing discretionary functions “from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory … “The First Circuit has adopted a two-part test to assess qualified immunity.” Cosenza v. City of Worcester, 355 F. Supp. 3d 81, 94 (D. Mass. 2019).

Conlon v. Scaltreto

District Court, D. Massachusetts · Jun 21, 2024

Qualified Immunity Generally The doctrine of qualified immunity protects public employees “from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory … In the absence of any such clearly established right, the officers are entitled to qualified immunity. Accordingly, Count 3 as to the individual defendants will be dismissed. 4.

Kosilek v. Maloney

221 F. Supp. 2d 156 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Aug 28, 2002

Indeed, the court found that Maloney, in his individual capacity, had qualified immunity and dismissed Kosilek’s claims for damages because the relevant law was not clearly established. … It is, however, clearly established that an inmate has such a right.

Hullum v. Mici

District Court, D. Massachusetts · Mar 26, 2025

Qualified Immunity “Qualified immunity shields federal and state officials from money damages unless a plaintiff pleads facts showing (1) that the official … plaintiff faced in new housing unit, summary judgment based on qualified immunity was not merited because “it was clearly established that prison officials violate a prisoner's Eighth

Poirier v. Massachusetts Department of Correction

532 F. Supp. 2d 275 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Jan 30, 2008

Qualified Immunity One last point needs to be addressed. … It is clear from the discussion above that the right relied on by Poirier had not been “clearly established” as that term is properly understood, see Saucier v.

Fine Mortuary College, LLC v. American Board of Funeral Service Education, Inc.

473 F. Supp. 2d 153 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Dec 18, 2006

The only question is whether the ABSFE qualifies as a “charitable organization” within the meaning of the statute. … The Court finds, therefore, that the ABS-FE qualifies for charitable immunity and liability on the state tort claims will be limited to $20,000 pursuant to M.G.L. c. 231, § 85K. c.

Stewart v. Amaral

626 F. Supp. 192 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Dec 31, 1985

Before a court can grant immunity to a defense witness, “the defendant must make a convincing showing sufficient to satisfy the court that the testimony which will be forthcoming is both clearly exculpatory and essential … Specifically, immunity should be denied “if the proffered testimony is found to be ambiguous, not clearly exculpatory, cumulative or if it is found to relate only to the credibility of the government’s witnesses.” Id.

Lynsky Ex Rel. Estate of Maguire v. City of Boston

761 F. Supp. 858 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Apr 10, 1991

As a result, he argues, he has qualified immunity from suits for gross negligence. Memorandum of Defendant, Dae Yung Chun, M.D. … Chun also asserts the qualified immunity from suit granted to him by virtue of his status as a public employee in support of his motion for summary judgment with respect to the claims of gross negligence.

United States v. Massachusetts Institute of Technology

957 F. Supp. 301 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Jan 10, 1997

Circuit have clearly rejected the selective waiver theory. See Westinghouse Elec. Corp. v. … “Materials assembled in the ordinary course of business ... or for other nonlitigation purposes are not under the qualified immunity provided by this subdivision.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(b)(3) advisory committee’s note.

Wagner v. City of Holyoke

241 F. Supp. 2d 78 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Jan 24, 2003

This fact will be significant when the court addresses the individual defendants’ claims of qualified immunity below. … The First Circuit’s recent discussion of qualified immunity in Dirrane v.

In re Grand Jury Subpoena

220 F.R.D. 130 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Mar 16, 2004

Thus, an adversarial rulemaking is litigation for purposes of the immunity. … The Court agrees with Professors Wright, Miller, and Marcus that the question whether to characterize work product protection as a "privilege,” as a "qualified privilege,” or as an "immunity” is a comparatively unimportant