Case law

Cummings v. Libby

176 F. Supp. 2d 26 · District Court, D. Maine · Dec 20, 2001

I did not instruct the juty on qualified immunity. Saucier v. Katz, 533 U.S. 194, 121 S.Ct. 2151 , 2158, 150 L.Ed.2d 272 (2001), held that qualified immunity is a separate inquiry from the unreasonable force inquiry. … Although a judge ordinarily deals with qualified immunity in the early stages of a case, it is uncertain in the First Circuit what role the jury has if the issue stays in the case until trial. See, e.g., Tatro v.

Santoni v. Potter

222 F. Supp. 2d 14 · District Court, D. Maine · Aug 19, 2002

A government official enjoys immunity from individual liability unless (1) he violated a constitutional right, (2) that right was clearly established at the time of the violation, and (3) an objectively reasonable official … immunity.

Simpson v. Gallant

231 F. Supp. 2d 341 · District Court, D. Maine · Jul 17, 2002

Rennie, 264 F.3d 86, 113 (1st Cir.2001) (“Qualified immunity protects state actors ‘from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which … justify [affording] qualified immunity [to a city].

Dall v. Goulet

871 F. Supp. 518 · District Court, D. Maine · Dec 21, 1994

The Maine Tort Claims Act standard for qualified immunity differs from that applied to section 1983 claims. 14 M.R.S.A. § 8111. See McLain v. … ’s actions were lawful 'in light of clearly established law and the information’ that Defendant possessed.”

Steeves v. City of Rockland

600 F. Supp. 2d 143 · District Court, D. Maine · Feb 18, 2009

“[T]here is no legitimate doubt that the right asserted here was clearly established.” Id. … Thus, defeating a qualified immunity defense requires a showing of an incremental degree of error—an incommensurate use of force beyond that needed to establish a garden-variety excessive force claim and, further, beyond

Haskell v. Phinney

595 F. Supp. 637 · District Court, D. Maine · Sep 28, 1984

MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT The Defendant Sheriffs Qualified Immunity The defendants argue that the action against the defendant sheriff should be dismissed as a result of qualified immunity. They rely upon Harlow v. … U.S. at 818 [ 102 S.Ct. at 2738 ] or, if the law was not clearly established, summary judgment should be granted for the official.

Portz v. St. Cloud State Univ. & Minn. State Colls. & Universities

297 F. Supp. 3d 929 · District Court, D. Maine · Feb 26, 2018

The Eleventh Amendment bars suit against state governments brought in federal court unless the state has clearly and unequivocally waived its immunity, Faibisch v. … Plaintiffs must thus establish that Title IX abrogated sovereign immunity with respect to equal-protection claims brought under Section 1983. In Egerdahl v.

Westberry v. Fisher

309 F. Supp. 12 · District Court, D. Maine · Oct 25, 1980

He then concluded: Hence I take it as a roughly accurate generalization that members of a city council, and other public officers not in the exceptional category of officers having complete immunity, would have a qualified … Although the Eleventh Amendment in terms inhibits only federal court suits against a state by citizens of another state, it has long been established that a state is equally immune from federal court suits brought by its

Martin v. Somerset County

387 F. Supp. 2d 65 · District Court, D. Maine · Sep 16, 2005

In answering Martin’s complaint the defendants asserted a qualified immunity defense. … In the second stage, the question is “whether the right was clearly established at the time of the alleged violation such that a reasonable officer would be on notice that his conduct was unlawful.” Id.

Russo v. Reed

93 F. Supp. 554 · District Court, D. Maine · Oct 23, 1950

Therefore, although perhaps federal jurisdiction might have been grounded upon diversity of citizenship and amount in controversy, Title 28 U.S.C.A. § 1332 (a) (1), it seems to us that such jurisdiction clearly rests upon … Neither do we consider the plaintiffs’ argument that the statute is also invalid, first because it not only requires residence, but also residence for three years, in order to qualify for a resident commercial fishing license

Buchanan Ex Rel. Estate of Buchanan v. Maine

417 F. Supp. 2d 24 · District Court, D. Maine · Feb 16, 2006

Gilbert is shielded from liability under the doctrine of qualified immunity. This Court agrees with the State Defendants’ first contention. … Dec.1, 2005) (motion to dismiss) ("Our precedent clearly commands the conclusion that the State is not entitled to Eleventh Amendment immunity under Title II of the ADA”) (citing Dare v.

Gomes v. University of Maine System

304 F. Supp. 2d 117 · District Court, D. Maine · Feb 23, 2004

The individual Defendants have posited the affirmative defense of qualified immunity. … Individual defendants are entitled to qualified immunity for official action unless: (1) their conduct violated the Plaintiffs’ constitutional rights; and (2) the law to this effect was clearly established under then-existing

Clarke v. Blais

473 F. Supp. 2d 124 · District Court, D. Maine · Feb 12, 2007

immunity for the officers. … His sworn version of the events, if accepted as true, would foreclose qualified immunity.

Pelletier v. Magnusson

195 F. Supp. 2d 214 · District Court, D. Maine · Apr 16, 2002

Qualified Immunity Lipman, Stewart, and Bartlett (as well as the other State defendants) do assert that, even if there is a constitutional violation, they are entitled to qualified immunity. … “Qualified immunity protects state actors ‘from liability for civil damages inso *241 far as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known

Hoffman v. Connecticut

671 F. Supp. 2d 166 · District Court, D. Maine · Sep 18, 2009

that the constitutional right was clearly established such that a reasonable person in the position of the defendant Fitzsimmons (the sole individual defendant over whom there is personal jurisdiction in this matter), should … have known that his actions would violate such a right. 2 Qualified immunity, therefore, requires dismissal of Count II against the defendant Fitzsimmons, removing the federal claim from the lawsuit.

Roy v. Correct Care Solutions, LLC

321 F. Supp. 3d 155 · District Court, D. Maine · Mar 30, 2018

A qualified immunity analysis consists of two parts: (1) whether Roy alleges facts that, if true, demonstrate violations of a constitutional right, and (2) whether that right was clearly established at the time of the alleged … So long as the defendant is "not contravening clearly established law, [the defendant is] entitled to qualified immunity." Taylor v.

Crosby v. Reynolds

763 F. Supp. 666 · District Court, D. Maine · May 6, 1991

On summary judgment, the judge appropriately may determine, not only the currently applicable law, but whether that law was clearly established at the time an action occurred. Harlow v. … I conclude, therefore, that the defendants are entitled to qualified immunity on the plaintiff’s charge that her constitutional right to privacy was invaded.

Bloomquist v. Albee

421 F. Supp. 2d 162 · District Court, D. Maine · Mar 9, 2006

immunity.”) … established by June 3, 2003.”

Cousins v. Dole

674 F. Supp. 360 · District Court, D. Maine · Nov 18, 1987

Therefore, absent any express statutory waiver of governmental immunity, Plaintiffs claims for monetary relief are barred by principles of sovereign immunity. II. … Ash, 422 U.S. 66 , 95 S.Ct. 2080 , 45 L.Ed.2d 26 (1975), which established a four-part test for implying private rights of action under a federal statute. 7 The Cort test is applied “to help the courts decide what Congress

Fowles v. Stearns

886 F. Supp. 894 · District Court, D. Maine · May 17, 1995

Defendants ask this Court to conclude *901 that they are entitled to qualified immunity on the record presented on this motion. … Under section 1983, the deputies would be entitled to qualified immunity if this Court determines, after examination of the “ ‘objective reasonableness’ of an official’s conduct, ... whether the conduct violated ‘clearly