Case law

Powell v. Nunley

682 F. Supp. 2d 1260 · District Court, W.D. Oklahoma · Jan 14, 2010

The individual defendants all assert the defense of qualified immunity. … the right in question was clearly established at the time of the alleged violation.

Briggs v. OKL. EX REL. OKL. DEPT. OF HUMAN SERVICE

472 F. Supp. 2d 1304 · District Court, W.D. Oklahoma · Jan 31, 2007

"The doctrine of qualified immunity shields public officials . . . from damages actions unless their conduct was unreasonable in light of clearly established law." Elder v. … Thus, these defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity.

Ashford v. Edmond Public School District

822 F. Supp. 2d 1189 · District Court, W.D. Oklahoma · Sep 28, 2011

The individual defendants assert the defense of qualified immunity, which protects them from personal liability under § 1983 unless they violated a constitutional right that was clearly established at the time of their conduct … Plaintiffs have failed to respond to the individual defendants’ qualified immunity defense with argument showing that a student’s right of substantive due process in this context was “ ‘clearly established by reference to

Matlock v. Town of Harrah, Okl.

719 F. Supp. 1523 · District Court, W.D. Oklahoma · Aug 24, 1989

Immunity The individual defendants assert that they are immune from section 1983 liability under the qualified immunity doctrine of Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800 , 102 S.Ct. 2727 , 73 L.Ed.2d 396 (1982). … immunity.

Oklahoma Observer v. Patton

73 F. Supp. 3d 1318 · District Court, W.D. Oklahoma · Dec 19, 2014

The relief sought here is within the scope of Ex parte Young and plaintiffs’ claims are not barred by Eleventh Amendment immunity. … If both elements are present, a qualified right of public access attaches to the process or proceeding. Id. at 9 , 106 S.Ct. 2735 .

Antwine v. Oklahoma City Police Department

District Court, W.D. Oklahoma · Jun 18, 2025

Antwine’s clearly established constitutional rights, Defendant Burton asserts that he is entitled to qualified immunity. Id. at 8. In her response, Plaintiff argues that Mr. … The Court elects to focus its analysis on the “clearly established” prong of the qualified immunity inquiry. See Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223, 236 (2009).

McIntire v. Bethel School, Independent School District No. 3

804 F. Supp. 1415 · District Court, W.D. Oklahoma · Jun 19, 1992

Defendants’ motion to dismiss on qualified immunity grounds as a motion for summary judgment. See M.S. News Co. v. … is alleged to have violated was clearly established at the'time of the violation and that the defendant’s conduct violated the law.

Slater

District Court, W.D. Oklahoma · Mar 26, 2026

In “exercis[ing] [its] sound discretion in deciding which of the two prongs of the qualified immunity analysis should be addressed first,” the Court first analyzes the clearly established law prong of the qualified immunity … Defendant argues he is entitled to qualified immunity because Plaintiff has failed to show that Defendant’s conduct violated a clearly established constitutional or statutory right. [Doc. No. 6, at 24].

Castillo v. Bobelu

1 F. Supp. 3d 1190 · District Court, W.D. Oklahoma · Feb 27, 2014

Robinson claims. 21 Qualified, Immunity Defendants Jones-Cooper, Dolan, and Larsen, who are sued in their supervisory 22 capacities, have asserted the defense of qualified immunity. … the right was clearly established at the time of the alleged unlawful activity.

Estate of Rose Boehs, by and through Renee Heflin, Marlinda Lamle, and Desiree Selby, Personal Representatives; Estate of Penelope Lamle, by and through Joshua Lamle and Lexy Jobe, Personal Representatives; and Estate of Maxine Houston, by and through Dal Houston, Personal Representative v. Oklahoma Department of Human Services; Oklahoma Health Care Authority; Kayla Bean, individually; Lena Schweitzer, individually; Cynthia Wunderle, individually; and John Does

District Court, W.D. Oklahoma · Jun 12, 2026

at issue was ‘clearly established’ at the time of defendant’s alleged misconduct.” … right was clearly established at the time of the alleged violation.’”

Kemp

District Court, W.D. Oklahoma · Mar 31, 2026

“Qualified immunity protects 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 known.” … The burden is on Plaintiff to respond to Defendant Tipton’s assertion of qualified immunity by showing the asserted right was “clearly established at the time of the conduct at issue.”

Smart v. United States

111 F. Supp. 907 · District Court, W.D. Oklahoma · Apr 30, 1953

The sole and unqualified authority to make these decisions must *911 he vested in those government employees who alone know all the circumstances and ■are specifically qualified to act. … Immunity must attach to their discretion thus exercised.

Yang v. Oklahoma State Bureau of Narcotics and Dangerous Drugs Control

District Court, W.D. Oklahoma · Jun 2, 2025

raise a qualified immunity defense. Id. … Regardless of the conduct at issue, a defendant is “entitled to qualified immunity unless Plaintiff has carried her burden of showing the law was clearly established.” Ullery v.

Burris

District Court, W.D. Oklahoma · Jul 17, 2026

In the qualified-immunity context, “[i]n determining whether the plaintiff has met [his] burden of establishing a constitutional violation that was clearly established, [courts] construe the facts in the light most favorable … Burris’s conduct was clearly established, and Sgt. Burris is thus entitled to qualified immunity. II. Probable Cause Sgt.

Weiss v. Sawyer

28 F. Supp. 2d 1221 · District Court, W.D. Oklahoma · Sep 19, 1997

Even if a Bivens claim were not precluded by the availability of statutory remedies, the moving Defendants would be entitled to qualified immunity. … The Plaintiff has not alleged conduct by the Defendants which violates clearly established statutory or constitutional rights. See Harlow v.

Croston v. Department of Veterans Affairs

District Court, W.D. Oklahoma · Jun 30, 2025

Breshears is not entitled to qualified immunity at the pleading stage because Croston has plausibly alleged a violation of clearly established law. … Therefore, the Court will assess the “clearly established” prong of the qualified immunity analysis by looking to the full landscape of the law, including cases that neither party has identified. Myers.” Ramirez v.

Serpik v. Marsee

District Court, W.D. Oklahoma · Jun 6, 2022

Qualified immunity “shields public officials ... from damages actions unless their conduct was unreasonable in light of clearly established law.” Gann v. … Because Plaintiff is obligated to identify legal authority that rendered his rights “clearly established” for qualified immunity purposes and because he has failed to do so, Defendant Marsee is entitled to qualified immunity

Barker v. Weatherford Police Department

District Court, W.D. Oklahoma · Apr 18, 2025

To overcome the assertion of qualified immunity, the plaintiff “must establish (1) that the defendant violated a constitutional or statutory right, and (2) that this right was clearly established at the time of the defendant's … Plaintiff contends that qualified immunity does not apply because it is clearly established that the use of force against “effectively subdued” individuals violates the Fourth Amendment.

Jones

District Court, W.D. Oklahoma · Jun 24, 2026

the right was “clearly established” at the time of the challenged conduct.’” … “Ordinarily, in order for the law to be clearly established, there must be a Supreme Court or Tenth Circuit decision on point, or the clearly established weight of authority from other courts must have found the

Gray v. Mills

District Court, W.D. Oklahoma · Feb 28, 2025

Plaintiffs disagree, but because they did not plead facts to show that Mays violated clearly established law, they have not overcome Mays’s qualified immunity as to their individual-capacity Section 1983 claims. … Qualified immunity protects government officials sued in their individual capacities “from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights