Case law

Mead v. INDEPENDENCE ASS'N

714 F. Supp. 2d 188 · District Court, D. Maine · May 27, 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 assuming Plaintiff had adequately alleged a constitutional violation, Defendants Cobb and Braden would be entitled to qualified immunity because such violation was not clearly established.

Trafton v. Devlin

43 F. Supp. 2d 56 · District Court, D. Maine · Mar 4, 1999

prosecutors violated Plaintiffs’ “clearly established constitutional rights.” … United States, 99 F.3d 1200, 1215 (1st Cir.1996) (“a court may ... bypass the qualified immunity analysis if it would be futile because current law forecloses the claim on the merits”).

Przyborowski v. Howard

863 F. Supp. 22 · District Court, D. Maine · Jul 7, 1994

Detective Howard has moved for summary judgment on the basis of qualified immunity for the federal claim and absolute immunity for the state claim. … Przyborowski has therefore failed to show that it was “clearly established” that a warrant in Maine could not be used for such a purpose. 3 Detective Howard did not violate any clearly established constitutional right by

Collins v. Schmidt

326 F. Supp. 3d 733 · District Court, D. Maine · Aug 9, 2018

Thus, Schmidt is entitled to qualified immunity unless (1) the evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, establishes a violation of a constitutional or statutory right, and (2) the right was clearly established … As such, Schmidt is not entitled to qualified immunity.

Eaton v. Hancock County

741 F. Supp. 2d 307 · District Court, D. Maine · Sep 28, 2010

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 … Qualified Immunity as to Unreasonable Seizure The Magistrate Judge determined that Deputy Lepper is not entitled to qualified immunity on the unreasonable seizure claim because [i]t was clearly established long before 2006

Seekamp v. Michaud

936 F. Supp. 23 · District Court, D. Maine · Jul 30, 1996

In order to overcome a qualified immunity defense, a plaintiff must allege and prove that a defendant official violated a clearly established constitutional right. … Although it was clearly established that the events in this case constituted a seizure, the deputies are still entitled to qualified immunity if it would not have been apparent to a reasonable official in their position that

Clark v. Webster

384 F. Supp. 2d 371 · District Court, D. Maine · Aug 31, 2005

The doctrine of qualified immunity protects public officials from liability under § 1983 so long as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would … established at the time of the alleged violation (the first two prongs of the qualified immunity analysis).

Willette v. City of Waterville

516 F. Supp. 2d 139 · District Court, D. Maine · Oct 15, 2007

Qualified Immunity Ms. Willette’s claims against Officer Sellar and Chief of Police Morris (in his individual capacity) must be analyzed through the lens of qualified immunity. … The First Circuit’s three-step approach to qualified immunity claims asks: (1) whether the claimant has alleged the deprivation of an actual constitutional right; (2) whether the right was clearly established at the time

Smith v. Jackson

463 F. Supp. 2d 72 · District Court, D. Maine · Nov 28, 2006

Qualified Immunity Defendants’ argue, in the alternative, that they are entitled to qualified immunity. To analyze this question, consistent with Saucier v. … Clearly Established Rights The sécond inquiry requires far less consideration. The Fourth Amendment’s proscription on unreasonable seizures is, without question, “clearly established.”

Hodsdon v. Town of Greenville

52 F. Supp. 2d 117 · District Court, D. Maine · May 6, 1999

violates the Fourth Amendment by increasing the likelihood that deadly force will become necessary was not clearly established”). i. … The Court need not reach the issue of qualified immunity raised by Defendants with respect to this claim because Plaintiff has failed to establish a Fourth Amendment violation based on the absence of probable cause.

Diva's, Inc. v. City of Bangor

176 F. Supp. 2d 30 · District Court, D. Maine · Dec 20, 2001

Qualified immunity applied because their actions were not such that a reasonable official would have known he was violating a clearly established right. B Street, 835 F.Supp. at 1271 (citing Anderson v. … In contrast to absolute immunity, local government officials are entitled to limited, or qualified, immu *39 nity in performing discretionary functions provided their actions “did not violate clearly established statutory

Brock v. Hilton

832 F. Supp. 2d 67 · District Court, D. Maine · May 23, 2011

Qualified Immunity 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 … “whether the right was ‘clearly established’ at the time of the defendant’s alleged violation.”

Norton v. City of South Portland

831 F. Supp. 2d 340 · District Court, D. Maine · Dec 9, 2011

Rather, this case is readily resolved on the “clearly established” prong of the qualified immunity analysis. … under clearly established law.”

Collins v. Knox County

569 F. Supp. 2d 269 · District Court, D. Maine · Aug 1, 2008

The general rule of qualified immunity, set out in Harlow v. … In Cookish the court held that officials at the prison were entitled to qualified immunity because it was not clearly established what constituted an emergency. Id. at 448 n. 10.

Hustvet v. Allina Health Sys.

283 F. Supp. 3d 734 · District Court, D. Maine · Aug 22, 2017

of whether a qualified individual is '100% healed' from their injury for the required individual assessment whether the qualified individual is able to perform the essential functions of ... her job either with or without … No. 28-13 at 1), the record clearly shows that Hustvet was willing to complete the RME and would have completed it had Allina not required her to develop immunity to rubella.

McSorley v. Richmond

242 F. Supp. 2d 24 · District Court, D. Maine · Dec 31, 2002

Defendant Thomas Richmond bases his motion for summary judgment on the Par-ratt-Hudson doctrine and the doctrine of qualified immunity. … This question could be addressed as an aspect of the third qualified immunity element, or as a more basic element of a proper § 1983 claim.

Marr v. Maine Department of Human Services

215 F. Supp. 2d 261 · District Court, D. Maine · Jul 9, 2002

According to the complaint, Logan Marr, as an involuntary dependent in the custody of the DHS and in its substitute care program, had a clearly established, fundamental Fourth Amendment and Fourteenth Amendment (substantive … Most government officials are entitled to only qualified immunity, but officials performing judicial, legislative, or prosecutorial functions have been afforded absolute immunity.

Fonte v. Collins

713 F. Supp. 511 · District Court, D. Maine · May 16, 1989

An officer’s qualified immunity is pierced only if there clearly was no probable cause at the time the arrest was made. Id. at 5 . … Accordingly, under the objective test established in Harlow v. Fitzgerald, Defendants may not avail themselves of qualified immunity from liability under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 .

Thompson v. City of Portland

612 F. Supp. 390 · District Court, D. Maine · Jul 10, 1985

Defendants argue persuasively, however, that they are entitled to qualified immunity from the 1983 claims to the extent that they are based on the alleged warrantless arrest without probable cause. In Harlow v. … In such a situation the qualified immunity of the officer is not pierced because the existence of probable cause to arrest Plaintiff is subject to legitimate debate and reasonable disagreement.

Burbank v. Davis

238 F. Supp. 2d 317 · District Court, D. Maine · Jan 6, 2003

In other words, it is possible that Davis violated Burbank’s clearly established constitutional rights but is immune from suit because it was objectively reasonable for Davis to do so because the unlawfulness of his actions … The qualified immunity claim really reduces to the argument that because the injuries in this case were not serious, any officer in the Portland Police Department would be entitled to qualified immunity no matter what role