Case law

Moxley v. Town of Walkersville

601 F. Supp. 2d 648 · District Court, D. Maryland · Mar 6, 2009

Qualified immunity protects government officials “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 … Nonetheless, “qualified immunity ... will be upheld on a [Rule] 12(b)(6) motion only when the immunity is established on the face of the complaint,” Hafley v.

Moore v. Winer

190 F. Supp. 2d 804 · District Court, D. Maryland · Mar 20, 2002

The Supreme Court has recognized that questions of qualified immunity should be resolved as early as possible in the litigation, *806 as the purpose of the doctrine of qualified immunity is to serve as a bar to suit, not … Having in mind the Supreme Court’s threshold tests for consideration of a qualified immunity claim, see Wilson v.

Kebe v. Brown

161 F. Supp. 2d 634 · District Court, D. Maryland · Sep 12, 2001

granted qualified immunity. … Officers are “entitled to summary judgment on the ground of qualified immunity if they can establish that reasonable officers could have believed that their actions were lawful in light of both clearly established law and

Horn v. City of Seat Pleasant, Md.

57 F. Supp. 2d 219 · District Court, D. Maryland · Jul 20, 1999

Id. “ ‘If the right was not clearly established at the relevant time or if a reasonable [official] might not have known that his or her conduct violated that right, the [official] is entitled to immunity.’ ” Id. … Therefore the Eight Circuit in these cases did not address the issue of qualified immunity.

Langworthy v. Dean

37 F. Supp. 2d 417 · District Court, D. Maryland · Feb 8, 1999

As there is not a clearly established constitutional right to have claims of criminal activity by a private actor investigated, the doctrine of qualified immunity will bar these claims. 4 Plaintiff argues that his fight to … As the treaties do not provide the Plaintiff with a clearly established right to have his claims investigated and prosecuted, all of the Defendants are protected from suit by qualified immunity. 6 V As mentioned previously

Pinder v. Commissioners of Cambridge

821 F. Supp. 376 · District Court, D. Maryland · May 10, 1993

The lack of precise factors does not establish Defendants’ qualified immunity. … If an official subject to qualified immunity could claim that a right is not “clearly established” because the right contains limitations or has some uncertain areas of application, then an official would always be immune

Flanagan v. Anne Arundel County

593 F. Supp. 2d 803 · District Court, D. Maryland · Jan 22, 2009

A motion to dismiss based on qualified immunity must be granted unless plaintiffs state plausible facts that the defendants violated their clearly established federal rights. McKenna v. … A court should approach qualified immunity in three stages: (1) whether a constitutional right has been violated; (2) whether that right was clearly established at the time of the violation, and (3), if so, then whether a

Ransom v. Baltimore County

111 F. Supp. 2d 704 · District Court, D. Maryland · Aug 11, 2000

In assessing a claim for qualified immunity, the Court must: (i) identify the right allegedly violated; (ii) determine whether the constitutional right violated was clearly established at the time of the incident; and (iii … Because she is clearly protected by qualified privilege, the Court will not address her argument.

Adeyemi v. Office of General Counsel for Booth Police Officers, National Security Agency

District Court, D. Maryland · Dec 20, 2021

Adeyemi has not alleged facts amounting to a violation of the Fourth Amendment or any other “clearly established” constitutional right, the booth police officers would be entitled to qualified immunity as to his claims … Vill. of Pinehurst, 810 F.3d 892, 907 (4th Cir. 2016) (“Qualified immunity shields government officials from liability for civil damages, provided that their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional

Rossignol v. Voorhaar

321 F. Supp. 2d 642 · District Court, D. Maryland · May 5, 2004

to summary judgment based on qualified immunity. 4 Qualified immunity is a doctrine that 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 person would have known.”

De Ventura v. Keith

169 F. Supp. 2d 390 · District Court, D. Maryland · Sep 21, 2001

Under the doctrine of qualified immunity, public officials, such as law enforcement officials, are not liable under federal law for civil damages to the extent that their conduct does not contravene “clearly established rights … Katz, 533 U.S. 194 , 121 S.Ct. 2151 , 2156 (2001). 1 To obtain qualified immunity under Saucier, Defendant Keith must establish that in light of the clearly established law on probable cause for warrantless arrests, he reasonably

Henderson v. Simms

54 F. Supp. 2d 499 · District Court, D. Maryland · May 14, 1999

In order to be entitled to qualified immunity, public officials must show that their actions, objectively viewed, did not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable official would … Mar.26, 1999), and, of course, since it predated the defendants’ conduct anyway, it certainly could not constitute “clearly established” law of which they should have known. See, e.g., Hodge v.

Dixon v. Bishop

District Court, D. Maryland · Mar 11, 2020

However, even if the alleged sexual harassment arguably could reach such a level, the Correctional Defendants would 11 be entitled to qualified immunity, because there is no clearly … Ct. 577, 589 (2018) (stating that “officers are entitled to qualified immunity under § 1983 unless (1) they violated a federal statutory or constitutional right, and (2) the unlawfulness of their conduct was ‘clearly established

Traversa v. Ford

718 F. Supp. 2d 639 · District Court, D. Maryland · Jun 17, 2010

Qualified Immunity Assuming arguendo that Traversa stated viable claims under § 1983 and § 1985, the Defendants would nevertheless be entitled to qualified immunity for any claims arising from the decision to delay investigation … Accordingly, the Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity on any claims arising from the decision to delay investigation of Traversa’s Complaint. 4.

Estate of Saylor v. Regal Cinemas, Inc.

54 F. Supp. 3d 409 · District Court, D. Maryland · Oct 16, 2014

Under Harlow , government officials performing discretionary functions are entitled to qualified immunity from liability for damages to the extent that “their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … The entitlement to qualified immunity involves a two pronged inquiry: “first whether a constitutional violation occurred and second whether the right violated was clearly established.” Melgar v.

Richter v. Maryland

590 F. Supp. 2d 730 · District Court, D. Maryland · Dec 22, 2008

Defendant Beatty asserts that, even if plaintiff has projected sufficient evidence to establish a constitutional violation, qualified immunity bars plaintiffs claims. … Qualified immunity shields government officials who undertake discretionary functions from civil liability as long as their conduct does not violate clearly established constitutional rights. Orem v.

Huemmer v. MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL, ETC.

474 F. Supp. 704 · District Court, D. Maryland · Jul 9, 1979

The immunity established under Tenney was absolute, and Justice Powell, writing for the Court in Imbler , which established absolute immunity under section 1983 for a state prosecuting officer, characterized its scope as … Strickland rule, the immunity defense would be unavailing to petitioners if the constitutional right allegedly infringed by them was clearly established at the time of their challenged conduct, if they knew or should have

Turner v. Kight

192 F. Supp. 2d 391 · District Court, D. Maryland · Mar 25, 2002

Qualified Immunity Under the doctrine of qualified immunity, “government officials performing discretionary functions generally are shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly … Because the Court finds that no constitutional right was violated, it is unnecessary to analyze the second step of the qualified immunity analysis, i.e., whether the constitutional right was clearly established.

McREADY v. O'MALLEY

804 F. Supp. 2d 427 · District Court, D. Maryland · Mar 31, 2011

UMUC’s interest in maintaining discipline and efficiently administering the accounting department clearly outweighed Dr. McReady’s speech interests. *441 c. Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity. … Where the free speech rights Defendants allegedly violated were not clearly established at the time their challenged actions were taken, they are entitled to qualified immunity. Id. at 805 . Here, Dr.

Meyers v. BALTIMORE COUNTY, MD.

814 F. Supp. 2d 552 · District Court, D. Maryland · Sep 28, 2011

The Defendants argue that no constitutional violation occurred and that, even if it did, they are entitled to qualified immunity. … If the right was not clearly established, the officers are entitled to qualified immunity notwithstanding the violation. Id. at 200-01, 121 S.Ct. 2151 .