Case law

Zynger v. Department of Homeland Security

615 F. Supp. 2d 50 · District Court, E.D. New York · May 11, 2009

Sovereign Immunity The claims against the agency defendants will be dismissed on the grounds of sovereign immunity. “Absent a waiver, sovereign immunity shields the Federal Government and its agencies from suit.” … If true, this would likely establish a sufficient property interest. See Ciambriello v.

Bruney

District Court, E.D. New York · Aug 11, 2026

Qualified Immunity The defendants argue that the individual defendants are entitled to qualified immunity. (ECF No. 43 at 25–26.) … Accordingly, at this stage, the Court rejects the defendants’ qualified immunity defense. b.

Coleman v. County Of Nassau

District Court, E.D. New York · Nov 22, 2021

clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.’” … Making false statements in furtherance of a prosecution is a violation of an accused’s clearly established Fourth Amendment rights, and as such is not protected by qualified immunity.

New York v. Tanella

281 F. Supp. 2d 606 · District Court, E.D. New York · Sep 3, 2003

As the Sixth Circuit explained in Long , federal immunity under the Supremacy Clause is analogous to the concept of qualified immunity in the civil context. … Forsyth, 472 U.S. 511, 526 , 105 S.Ct. 2806 , 86 L.Ed.2d 411 (1985) (stating that qualified immunity “is an immunity from suit rather than a mere defense to liability; and like an absolute immunity, it is effectively lost

Glover v. United States

111 F. Supp. 2d 190 · District Court, E.D. New York · Jul 24, 2000

Regardless of whether those latter decisions are correct in holding that the mailbox rule is not applicable in the FTCA context, they are clearly unwarranted in their apparent conclusion that a rejection of the mailbox rule … Clearly, it is not. Glover’s attorney could have easily attached a return receipt card to his request when he mailed it and could have thereby obtained direct proof of receipt. Cf.

M. M. v. Anker

477 F. Supp. 837 · District Court, E.D. New York · Feb 6, 1979

Strickland, 1975, 420 U.S. 308 , 95 S.Ct. 992 , 43 L.Ed.2d 214 , makes it clear that public employees upon whom are imposed duties which require the exercise of discretion are entitled to a qualified immunity from damage … The Court in Procunier in effect sustained the defense but on the ground that at the time the public official acted the matter in issue, a prisoner’s correspondence rights, had not been clearly established constitutional

Hughes v. Ester C Co., NBTY

317 F.R.D. 333 · District Court, E.D. New York · Sep 30, 2016

This is sufficient to establish typicality. … Accordingly, Plaintiffs have established Rule 23(a)’s typicality requirement. D.

Mulvey

District Court, E.D. New York · Feb 27, 2026

“Even if an officer violated a plaintiff’s clearly established rights, he ‘will still be entitled to qualified immunity if it was objectively reasonable for him to believe that his acts did not violate those rights.’” … Because the right to be free from involuntary confinement is clearly established, in the involuntary hospitalization context, “the availability of qualified immunity turns on whether it was objectively reasonable for the

Littles v. Molloy

District Court, E.D. New York · Mar 28, 2021

In the false arrest context, qualified immunity shields an arresting officer from a claim for damages as long as the officer “can establish that there was ‘arguable probable cause’ to arrest.” Escalera v. … established prong of the qualified immunity analysis.

J.H. v. Bratton

248 F. Supp. 3d 401 · District Court, E.D. New York · Mar 31, 2017

“Under federal law, a police officer is entitled to qualified immunity where (1) his conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person *413 would have known, or ( … Furthermore, the existence of a police policy does not constitute clearly established law, nor does an officer’s knowledge of the policy satisfy the “objectively reasonable” belief test for purposes of denying qualified immunity

Defend H20 v. Town Board of East Hampton

147 F. Supp. 3d 80 · District Court, E.D. New York · Nov 30, 2015

It is well-established that “‘[a]bsent a waiver, sovereign immunity shields the federal Government and its agencies from ’suit[.]’” Wake v. United States, 89 F.3d 53, 57 (2d Cir.1996) (quoting Dorking Genetics v. … Jan. 16, 2015) (“Congress has not waived sovereign immunity for the United States or its agencies with regard to Article 78.

Raja v. Burns

District Court, E.D. New York · Feb 5, 2020

immunity because his conduct did not violate clearly established law. … Scherer, 486 U.S. 183, 190 (1984) (“Even defendants who violate [clearly established] constitutional rights enjoy a qualified immunity that protects them from liability for damages unless it is further demonstrated that

Sorrell v. County of Nassau

162 F. Supp. 3d 156 · District Court, E.D. New York · Feb 24, 2016

Instead they provide only a general statement of the law of qualified immunity and conclude that “there is no question” that defendants are entitled to qualified immunity, without providing any application of the specific … As a ‘result, their motion for summary judgment on qualified immunity grounds is denied. The Initial Stop Plaintiffs’ succinct objection to the officers’ basis to conduct the initial stop warrants addressing.

Costanzo v. The County of Suffolk

District Court, E.D. New York · Mar 11, 2022

“The doctrine of 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 … Sept. 28, 2018) (finding qualified immunity applied and that plaintiff had “no ‘clearly established right’ to be free of a false accusation” where the plaintiff alleged that corrections officer made false allegations against

Chroscielewski v. Calix

District Court, E.D. New York · Jan 14, 2020

Finally, Judge Pollak rejected the argument that allegations in the PAC itself established that the arresting officers were entitled to qualified immunity. … Qualified Immunity The City Defendants’ third objection — that Judge Pollak erred in concluding that the allegations in the PAC did not establish that all individual defendants were entitled to qualified immunity —

Schein v. United States

352 F. Supp. 182 · District Court, E.D. New York · Dec 29, 1972

And, the doctrine of sovereign immunity has clearly been extended to officials of the Internal Revenue Service. Babylon Milk and Cream Co., Inc. v. Rosenbush, 233 F.Supp. 735 (E.D.N.Y.1964); Bershed v. … The District Director here was clearly under no duty to allow plaintiff a reward or any other form of compensation.

Newman v. Holder

101 F. Supp. 2d 103 · District Court, E.D. New York · Jun 6, 2000

immunity; and (5) defendant Bureau of Prisons is not a proper party to these cases. … This approach more fully aligns with the clearly expressed statutory language of § 1997e(a), that “[n]o action shall be brought” unless the available administrative remedies are exhausted. 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a).

Kabath v. O'Connor

234 F. Supp. 917 · District Court, E.D. New York · Oct 23, 1964

consider (1) the ban of 28 U.S.C.A. § 2283 , 11 prohibiting a Federal court from staying State court proceedings except as expressly authorized by an Act of Congress and (2) the well settled judicial principle of comity, established … Indeed the contrary appears. 12 Wire-Tap Evidence Turning to the alleged violation of Section 605 of the Federal Communications Act, the Supreme Court has clearly stated that Congress did not by its enactment of this section

Adeyi v. United States

489 F. Supp. 2d 187 · District Court, E.D. New York · May 4, 2007

First, the court addresses three potential avenues clearly barred by sovereign immunity under Adeleke . The court then turns to potential avenues not so clearly barred. … The Adeleke court held that sovereign immunity barred Adeleke's claim under the Tucker Act because he could not establish an entitlement obligating "the United States to insure his seized property.” 355 F.3d at 152 .

Donohue v. Marsh

District Court, E.D. New York · Sep 8, 2022

Qualified immunity shields officers from liability unless their conduct violated “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” … A defendant may be liable for failure to intervene only if that “failure permitted fellow officers to violate a [plaintiff’s] clearly established statutory or constitutional rights.” Ricciuti v. N.Y.C.