Case law

McDermott v. Town of Windham

204 F. Supp. 2d 54 · District Court, D. Maine · May 31, 2002

Defendant Cox: Qualified Immunity The Supreme Court has held that government officials performing discretionary functions are generally shielded from civil damages so long as their conduct “does not violate clearly established … Under qualified immunity, “Public officials who stand accused of civil rights violations under section 1983 nonetheless can-avoid liability... by showing either that they did not violate a right clearly established under

Joseph v. Donahue

392 F. Supp. 3d 973 · District Court, D. Maine · May 28, 2019

"Qualified immunity shields government officials from liability and the burdens of litigation in a § 1983 action *984 unless the official's conduct violates a clearly established constitutional or statutory right of which … A police officer is entitled to qualified immunity unless the facts shown by the plaintiff establish "(1) that a plaintiff's constitutional rights have been violated, and (2) those rights were so clearly established at the

Ayotte v. Barnhart

973 F. Supp. 2d 70 · District Court, D. Maine · Sep 24, 2013

immunity because they violated clearly established law by refusing to address the increase in padlock assaults in 2010. … the right was ‘clearly established’ at the time of the defendant’s alleged violation.”

Parks v. City of Brewer

56 F. Supp. 2d 89 · District Court, D. Maine · Jul 16, 1999

Qualified Immunity To assess a claim of qualified immunity, a court must determine (i) whether the plaintiff has alleged the violation of a clearly established right, and (ii) whether a reasonable, similarly situated defendant … When the existence of a constitutional right rests solely on the outcome of a balancing test, many courts have determined that the right generally is not clearly established for purposes of qualified immunity.

Hinkley v. Baker

122 F. Supp. 2d 48 · District Court, D. Maine · Nov 21, 2000

“Hence, state officials exercising discretionary authority are entitled to qualified immunity insofar as their conduct does not transgress clearly established constitutional or federal statutory rights of which a reasonably … In discussing qualified immunity regarding abuse that occurred from 1980 to 1985, the Stoneking court noted that It may seem ludicrous to be obliged to consider whether it was “clearly established” that it was impermissible

Decotiis v. Whittemore

680 F. Supp. 2d 263 · District Court, D. Maine · Jan 28, 2010

However, in the interest of completeness, the Court will also address the second prong of the qualified immunity analysis' — whether, assuming that a constitutional violation occurred, such right was clearly established. … Accordingly, even if Plaintiffs Complaint stated a claim for First Amendment retaliation, Defendant Whittemore is entitled to qualified immunity because it was not clearly established that the First Amendment would be violated

Tauvar v. Bar Harbor Congregation of Jehovah's Witnesses, Inc.

633 F. Supp. 741 · District Court, D. Maine · Mar 26, 1986

The general rule of qualified immunity, set out in Harlow v. … This clearly buttresses the officer’s qualified immunity defense on the basis of good faith compliance with the law. Cf. Blackburn v.

Morelli v. Webster

554 F. Supp. 2d 46 · District Court, D. Maine · May 19, 2008

Excessive Force The Court next considered whether qualified immunity protects Defendant for the force he used against Morelli. … Defendant, therefore, would be entitled to qualified immunity.

Gonsalves v. Internal Revenue Service

791 F. Supp. 19 · District Court, D. Maine · Apr 28, 1992

See, e.g., Wages, 915 F.2d at 1235 (“[Defendants are clearly entitled to qualified immunity, since no prior decisions from our circuit have clearly established any of the constitutional rights alleged to have been violated … ’s complaint alleges no actions by defendants that violated a clearly established constitutional right to due process, defendants are immune from suit.”); Baddour, Inc. v.

REYES v. United States

District Court, D. Maine · Jul 26, 2022

Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 32-33 (1992) (holding that claims are frivolous under section 1915 when they are “clearly baseless, a category encompassing allegations that are fanciful, fantastic, and delusional” (cleaned … Testan, 424 U.S. 392, 399 (1976) (“It long has been established, of course, that the United States, as sovereign, is immune from suit save as it consents to be sued and the terms of its consent to be sued in any court

Buchanan Ex Rel. Estate of Buchanan v. Maine

417 F. Supp. 2d 45 · District Court, D. Maine · Feb 16, 2006

Step Two: Whether the Law Was Clearly Established The second step of the qualified immunity analysis is “whether the law was clearly established prior to” the violation. Savard, 338 F.3d at 27 . … Step Three: Whether a Reasonable Officer Would Have Understood His Conduct Contravened Clearly Established Law The third and final step in the qualified immunity analysis requires the Court to determine “whether a reasonable

LIVINGSTON v. STATE OF MAINE

District Court, D. Maine · Apr 24, 2024

The United States is immune from state constitutional claims. See Rich v. United States, 158 F. Supp. 2d 619, 630 (D. … When a plaintiff has failed to establish a waiver of sovereign immunity, a federal court lacks jurisdiction to hear the case.”).

Ms. K Ex Rel. S.B. v. City of South Portland

407 F. Supp. 2d 290 · District Court, D. Maine · Jan 3, 2006

Officials enjoy such immunity so long as their conduct did "not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Harlow v. … The Court finds no such violation of clearly established rights in this case. 7 . The Court’s qualified immunity analysis is also identical.

Frei v. Gilsrud

364 F. Supp. 3d 1001 · District Court, D. Maine · Jun 29, 2017

In evaluating whether qualified immunity applies, we first consider whether any clearly established constitutional right was violated and, if so, whether that right was clearly established when the alleged injury occurred … Nor is Officer Gilsrud entitled to qualified immunity.

Jackson v. Town of Waldoboro

751 F. Supp. 2d 263 · District Court, D. Maine · Nov 22, 2010

In Pearson , the Supreme Court established that the qualified immunity is a two part test. … Under this second stage of the qualified immunity inquiry, despite a clearly established and well-known right to be free from excessive deadly force, a reasonable officer standing in Curtis’ shoes — struggling in the woods

Singer v. State of Maine

865 F. Supp. 19 · District Court, D. Maine · Oct 4, 1994

Defendants respond that *22 these individuals are protected from suit pursuant to the doctrine of qualified immunity. 1 “When a defendant moves for summary judgment based on the doctrine of qualified immunity, the court must … These same defendants, however, do not possess qualified immunity with respect to Plaintiff Fifth Amendment § 1983 claim.

Lamarche v. Costain

225 F. Supp. 2d 83 · District Court, D. Maine · Oct 7, 2002

right was clearly established at the time of the alleged violation; and (3) whether an objectively reasonable official, similarly situated, would have understood the challenged conduct to violate that clearly established … Clearly Established Constitutional Right Qualified immunity analysis requires the Court to next examine whether Plaintiffs constitutional right was clearly established at the time of the alleged violation.

Young America's Found. v. Kaler

370 F. Supp. 3d 967 · District Court, D. Maine · Feb 26, 2019

decide qualified immunity defenses on that prong when "it is plain that a constitutional right is not clearly established but far from obvious whether in fact there is such a right"); accord Issaenko v. … Minn. 2014) (granting qualified immunity to University officials based solely on an analysis of the "clearly established" prong of qualified immunity).

Woods v. York County

534 F. Supp. 2d 153 · District Court, D. Maine · Feb 19, 2008

Qualified Immunity Defendants next argue that Plaintiffs § 1983 claims against Cote and Vitiello are barred by qualified immunity. … his conduct jeopardized [the plaintiffs clearly established] rights.”

Pew v. Scopino

904 F. Supp. 18 · District Court, D. Maine · Mar 15, 1995

Qualified Immunity When someone sues an official under section 1983 for damages resulting from the performance of the official’s duties, the qualified immunity defense prevents recovery if the conduct in question “does not … would have known that he or she was violating a clearly established right.