Case law

Richardson v. Coughlin

763 F. Supp. 1228 · District Court, S.D. New York · Apr 22, 1991

By 1987, it was clearly established that inmates possessed a constitutional right to due process, Wolff v. … Thus petitioner has not shown a violation of a clearly established right and defendants have qualified immunity from damages on the First Amendment claim. 2.

Wells v. Wade

36 F. Supp. 2d 154 · District Court, S.D. New York · Jan 28, 1999

Prison officials are not immune from § 1983 actions alleging intentional violations of clearly established and recognized rights. See Varrone, 123 F.3d at 78 . … It follows that Wade’s assertion of qualified immunity with respect to Wells’s retaliation claim clearly cannot be sustained.

Rao v. New York City Health and Hospitals Corp.

905 F. Supp. 1236 · District Court, S.D. New York · Aug 16, 1995

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 established statutory … The Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit has established a three part test for determining whether a defendant is entitled to qualified immunity: (1) whether the right in question was defined with “reasonable specificity

Rutherford v. Katonah-Lewisboro School District

670 F. Supp. 2d 230 · District Court, S.D. New York · Nov 3, 2009

Public officials are entitled to qualified immunity if “their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Harlow v. … Levy, 401 F.3d 75, 100-02 (2d Cir.2005) (rejecting qualified immunity defense because previous Second Circuit decisions clearly established the specific rights in question).

ROBERTS BY ROBERTS v. City of New York

753 F. Supp. 480 · District Court, S.D. New York · Dec 18, 1990

Qualified Immunity. … In applying the objective reasonableness standard to this ease, we cannot find that probable cause was so clearly lacking as to defeat Officer Brunelle’s claim to qualified immunity.

O'HAGAN v. Soto

565 F. Supp. 422 · District Court, S.D. New York · May 2, 1983

does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” … Mayone, 626 F.2d at 253 (“a public official may be entitled to a defense of qualified immunity if he can establish that he acted in good faith”).

Williams v. City of White Plains

718 F. Supp. 2d 374 · District Court, S.D. New York · Jun 16, 2010

immunity. 3 The Court will not discuss the issue *379 of probable cause because it finds that the police officers are entitled to qualified immunity. … Qualified immunity is designed to protect government officials from civil liability when their conduct “does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known

Savino v. Town of Southeast

983 F. Supp. 2d 293 · District Court, S.D. New York · Oct 21, 2013

QUALIFIED IMMUNITY Defendants contend that Tessmer is entitled to qualified immunity. … A defendant enjoys qualified immunity if he can show that “either (a) [his] action did not violate clearly established law, or (b) it was objectively reasonable for [him] to believe that his action did not violate such law

Turturro v. Continental Airlines

334 F. Supp. 2d 383 · District Court, S.D. New York · Aug 16, 2004

If no constitutional right is violated, then there is “no necessity for further inquiries concerning qualified immunity” and the defendants are granted qualified immunity. Saucier, 533 U.S. at 201, 121 S.Ct. at 2156. … If a constitutional violation is shown, then the Court must look to the second prong of a qualified immunity analysis and “ask whether the right was clearly established.” Id.

Ellis v. La Vecchia

567 F. Supp. 2d 601 · District Court, S.D. New York · Jul 22, 2008

Qualified Immunity Defendant argues that he is entitled to judgment as a matter of law because of qualified immunity. … Qualified immunity “shields government officials performing discretionary functions ‘from liability for civil damages’ insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which

Ford v. McGinnis

230 F. Supp. 2d 338 · District Court, S.D. New York · Jun 14, 2002

Accordingly, the qualified immunity defense is established where: “(a) the defendant’s action did not violate clearly established law, or (b) it was objectively reasonable for the defendant to believe that his action did … Assuming Ford could establish a constitutional violation, “a judge evaluating a claim of qualified immunity must [then] determine whether the federally protected right the defendant is accused of violating was clearly established

Lloyd v. City of New York

246 F. Supp. 3d 704 · District Court, S.D. New York · Mar 31, 2017

The Second Circuit has explained that “[e]ven where the plaintiffs federal rights and the scope of the official’s permissible conduct are clearly established, the qualified immunity defense protects a government actor if … Okst, 101 F.3d 845, 857 (2d Cir. 1996) (“[P]ublic officials are entitled to qualified immunity if (1) their conduct does not violate clearly established constitutional rights, or (2) it was objectively reasonable for them

Hilliard v. Scully

537 F. Supp. 1084 · District Court, S.D. New York · Apr 28, 1982

Therefore, while defendants are functionally comparable to judges in certain respects, the Court concludes that they are not entitled to absolute judicial immunity. 18 The qualified immunity accorded to prison officials, … Since the court imposed some limitations on the scope of the immunity it could well be argued that the immunity conferred was in fact a qualified immunity.

Lloyd v. Lee

570 F. Supp. 2d 556 · District Court, S.D. New York · Aug 14, 2008

Qualified Immunity “The doctrine of qualified immunity shields government employees acting in their official capacity from suits for damages under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 , unless their conduct violated clearly established rights … On a motion to dismiss, a qualified immunity defense will prevail “if the complaint fails to allege the violation of a clearly established constitutional right.” Williams v.

Jones v. WESTCHESTER CTY. DEPT., CORR. MED. DEPT.

557 F. Supp. 2d 408 · District Court, S.D. New York · May 6, 2008

Qualified immunity Likewise, Defendants completely misplace their argument for qualified immunity. … ("Qualified Immunity: Special Rules"). "Failure to proceed in accordance with these rules constitutes a waiver of the right to move for judgment on the ground of qualified immunity prior to trial." Id.

Carter v. Fagin

363 F. Supp. 2d 661 · District Court, S.D. New York · Mar 31, 2005

Perilli’s motion for dismissal on the ground of qualified immunity because a reasonable jury could find that Dr. … Doe, supra—defendant Perilli is not entitled to qualified immunity as a matter of law.

Ganek v. Leibowitz

167 F. Supp. 3d 623 · District Court, S.D. New York · Mar 10, 2016

Even accepting that allegation as true, Defendants argue that they are entitled to qualified immunity because it was not “clearly established” that tipping the news media would violate Ganek’s constitutional rights. … Defendants challenge Ganek’s proposed remedy, arguing that there is no “clearly established constitutional right” to public exoneration and therefore Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity.

White v. Frank

680 F. Supp. 629 · District Court, S.D. New York · Feb 29, 1988

The Court held that the defendant was entitled to the qualified immunity established in United States v. … First, Section 1983 must not be read to create any new immunities not clearly recognized at common law. Second, the raison d’etre for the absolute immunity rule in Briscoe is the quest for truth.

Walsh v. Finn

865 F. Supp. 126 · District Court, S.D. New York · Jul 22, 1994

Under the doctrine of qualified immunity, public officials are not held liable for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable official … Defendant had previously asserted the defense of qualified immunity on the grounds that it was not clearly established that an inmate had a right not to be confined to keeplock pending his administrative appeal of a disciplinary

Fairchild, Arabatzis & Smith, Inc. v. Sackheim

451 F. Supp. 1189 · District Court, S.D. New York · Jul 27, 1978

Even if damages potentially were available, however, we conclude that the agents are entitled to assert, as they have done, a defense of qualified, official immunity. See Wood v. … United States Department of Agriculture, supra, 535 F.2d 688 , and that they have established an uncontested factual basis for their claim of immunity.