Case law

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.

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?

Thomas v. Town of Salisbury

277 F. Supp. 3d 161 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Sep 30, 2017

right that the official has violated was clearly established at the time of the violation.” … Justice Thompson argued that the majority had construed “the clearly-established-right prong” of the qualified immunity analysis too narrowly, and required that the precedent be too directly on point before an official could

Facey v. Dickhaut

91 F. Supp. 3d 12 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Sep 30, 2014

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 .

Niles v. Town of Wakefield

172 F. Supp. 3d 429 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Mar 24, 2016

Qualified Immunity ■ The First Circuit recently described the contours of the qualified immunity defense in detail as follows: The rules for granting qualified immunity are well established, “The doctrine of qualified immunity … ” subject to qualified immunity).

Mason v. Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection

774 F. Supp. 2d 349 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Mar 29, 2011

entitled to qualified immunity because their liability had not been “clearly established.” 160 The Individual Defendants provide no First Circuit case law to support the application of qualified immunity here. 161 The Individual … See, e.g., Darby, 287 F.3d at 681 (explaining that the qualified immunity defense does not apply because the FMLA creates "clearly established statutory rights”).

Doe Ex Rel. Doe v. Preston

472 F. Supp. 2d 16 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Jan 30, 2007

third prongs [of the qualified immunity test].” 469 F.3d at 168. … The plaintiff argues that the defendants were on notice that their strip search policy violated clearly established law because “closely analogous cases” clearly established that policies permitting strip searches conducted

Cullen v. Mattaliano

690 F. Supp. 93 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Jun 2, 1988

Defendants Mattaliano and MacDonald’s Claims of Qualified Immunity A. Qualified Immunity. … The Supreme Court devised an objective test for qualified immunity in Harlow v.

Merisier v. Ellender

197 F. Supp. 3d 310 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Jul 6, 2016

As the First Circuit recently explained: The rules for granting qualified immunity are well established. … “The doctrine of qualified immunity shields officials from civil liability so long as their conduct ‘does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.’

Cavanagh v. Taranto

95 F. Supp. 3d 220 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Mar 31, 2015

What an Objectively Reasonable Official Would Believe Under the Circumstances Although the right Cavanagh alleges is clearly established, to avoid qualified immunity the bounds and contours of a violation of that right must … suicide — “violated clearly established law.”

Borucki v. Ryan

658 F. Supp. 325 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Aug 20, 1986

established and Ryan would be entitled to qualified immunity under Harlow v. … Moreover, this right was clearly established at the time of the alleged deprivation, so defendant Ryan may not successfully invoke qualified good faith immunity at this stage.

Scarpa v. Ponte

638 F. Supp. 1019 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Jul 2, 1986

Third, Scarpa claims that defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity because his rights under the First and Fourteenth Amendments were clearly established at the time he was wrongly punished. 2 A. … In King, the First Circuit Court of Appeals took into account the defendant’s violation of clearly established prison regulations in denying his qualified immunity defense.

Kennedy v. Osmanski, III

District Court, D. Massachusetts · Nov 30, 2022

Moreno, 919 F.3d 582, 600-01 (1st Cir. 2019) (holding that FBI agents were not entitled to qualified immunity in a Bivens action arising from a warrantless search of plaintiff’s home in … Moreover, First Circuit precedent establishes the viability of Bivens claims in the aftermath of an unreasonable search during a routine law enforcement investigation. See DeMayo v.

NUON v. City of Lowell

768 F. Supp. 2d 323 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Mar 4, 2011

The principle of qualified immunity shields a police officer from liability for civil damages when his conduct does not violate clearly-established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have … On this point, Kinney would not be entitled to qualified immunity.

Robinson v. Cook

863 F. Supp. 2d 49 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Mar 21, 2012

“[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). … Whether the Constitutional Right was Clearly Established The defendants argue that even if Mario’s constitutional rights were violated, they are entitled to qualified immunity because that right was not clearly established

Germany v. Vance

673 F. Supp. 1143 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Dec 1, 1987

They also assert that they are entitled to qualified immunity as state officials because they had no clearly established constitutional duty to disclose the recantation by plaintiffs father. Discussion A.. … Qualified Immunity. The defendants have raised a qualified immunity defense to all of plaintiffs claims.

McIntyre v. United States

336 F. Supp. 2d 87 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Sep 30, 2004

Qualified Immunity Under the qualified immunity doctrine, “government officials performing discretionary functions generally are shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly … The defense of qualified immunity applies unless the law is clearly established either by materially similar precedent or by general legal principles that apply with obvious clarity to the facts of the case. Hope v.

Stamps v. Town of Framingham

38 F. Supp. 3d 146 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Dec 24, 2014

Stamps was objectively reasonable; and (3) Duncan is entitled to qualified immunity because a constitutional right to be free from unintentional shootings was not clearly established at the time of the incident. II. … For purposes of the second step of the qualified-immunity analysis, “[a] right is clearly established only if it would be clear to a reasonable officer that his conduct was unlawful in the situation he confronted.”

Fraser v. Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority

District Court, D. Massachusetts · Jun 16, 2021

Qualified immunity protects public employees “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 known … Under that standard, they are clearly protected by qualified immunity.

Delaney v. Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority

24 F. Supp. 3d 121 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Jun 4, 2014

Qualified Immunity For much the same reason, defendants are entitled to qualified immunity. … “A right is clearly established and immunity will not issue only if ‘every reasonable official would have understood that what he is doing violates that right.’ ” Id. at 50-51 (quoting Ashcroft v. al-Kidd, — U.S. -, 131 S.Ct