Case law

Jaglowicz v. Bethel Township

178 F. Supp. 3d 262 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Apr 14, 2016

Qualified Immunity Chief Worrilow and the five township supervisors invoke qualified immunity. Ja-glowicz having conceded that Worrilow has no liability, we consider qualified immunity for the five township supervisors. … In other words, if we find that the alleged right was not clearly established, the inquiry ends and the official is entitled to qualified immunity.

Gilbert v. Feld

788 F. Supp. 854 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 30, 1992

The defense of qualified immunity can support the grant of a Rule 12(b)(6) motion only when the complaint itself establishes the circumstances required for a finding of qualified immunity. Green v. … Plaintiff’s complaint does not set forth facts establishing qualified immunity. A qualified immunity defense can, therefore, not be used to defeat the claim on this 12(b)(6) motion.

Burke v. Twp. of Cheltenham

742 F. Supp. 2d 660 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Oct 5, 2010

Federal “qualified immunity” has been established by case law, Harlow v. … Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. at 818 , 102 S.Ct. 2727 , “[u]nless the plaintiffs allegations state a claim of violation of clearly established law, a defendant pleading qualified immunity is entitled to dismissal before the commencement

Brantley v. Wysocki

145 F. Supp. 3d 407 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Oct 30, 2015

Corporal Wysocki is entitled to qualified immunity on Brantley’s First Amendment Retaliation claim “Qualified immunity protects government officials from liability from civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate … The next question is determining if Brantley’s constitutional right is clearly established.

Muzychka v. Tyler

563 F. Supp. 1061 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Apr 18, 1983

Judith Tyler, a Special Agent of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (“FBI”) has moved for summary judgment claiming she is immune from liability on the grounds of qualified immunity. … Clearly, an FBI agent’s decision whether to stop and search a suspect is a discretionary function entitling the agent to the defense of qualified immunity. See, e.g., Druckenmiller v.

Johnson v. City of Chester

10 F. Supp. 2d 482 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jul 31, 1998

Qualified and Legislative Immunity Defendants next seek qualified immunity for Police Commissioner Butler, and both legislative and qualified immunity for Mayor Wilson, for their alleged actions. … Such rights are among the most well-known and clearly-established in our Constitution.

Carroll v. Lancaster Cnty.

301 F. Supp. 3d 486 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 14, 2018

The Court went on to explain that neither Colburn I nor Colburn II clearly established such a right. Id. at 2045 . … Qualified Immunity Qualified immunity shields government officials performing discretionary functions from liability for civil *513 damages unless their conduct violates clearly established statutory or constitutional rights

Fields v. Blake

349 F. Supp. 2d 910 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Dec 20, 2004

Under the qualified immunity doctrine, “[o]fficials exercising discretionary powers are ‘shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … Once a plaintiff has *922 established a constitutional violation, courts evaluating a qualified immunity claim must decide whether the constitutional right was clearly established. Id.

Holloway v. Brechtse

279 F. Supp. 2d 613 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Aug 18, 2003

Qualified Immunity Finally, Defendant argues Plaintiffs complaint should be dismissed because Defendant is entitled to qualified immunity. … The standard for qualified immunity is an objective one that asks whether a reasonable public official would know that his specific conduct violated clearly established rights. Grant v.

DeHart v. Lehman

9 F. Supp. 2d 539 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jun 23, 1998

from suit under the doctrine of qualified immunity; and D) Plaintiff was not denied equal protection of the law. 3 Qualified Immunity Under the doctrine of qualified immunity, “government officials performing discretionary … Where a defendant asserts a qualified immunity defense in a motion for summary judgment, the plaintiff bears the initial burden of showing that the defendant’s conduct violated some clearly established constitutional right

Robey v. Chester County

946 F. Supp. 333 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Sep 12, 1996

Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800 , 102 S.Ct. 2727 , 73 L.Ed.2d 396 (1982), a court determines qualified immunity according to an objective standard: an official’s conduct must not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … Only federal constitutional and statutory rights can be considered in evaluating a claim for qualified immunity under Harlow ; violations of clearly established state law alone are not sufficient. Davis v.

Estate of Burke v. Mahanoy City

40 F. Supp. 2d 274 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 3, 1999

violated clearly established federal law.” … The Supreme Court has explained what it means by clearly established law for the purpose of qualified immunity: The contours of the right must be suffi.ciently clear that a reasonable official would understand what he is

Green v. Thoryk

30 F. Supp. 2d 862 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Dec 16, 1998

. ¶¶ 18, 22, qualify as a violation of a clearly established right of which a reasonable person should have known, the standard necessary to overcome qualified immunity. See Harlow v. … Refusal to provide redress for baseless claims does not violate a clearly established right.

Roman v. Appleby

558 F. Supp. 449 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Feb 22, 1983

Immunity Defendants’ defense of qualified or “good faith” immunity is much more persuasive. The immunity concept is based upon the need to ensure principled and conscientious governmental decision-making. Crowder v. … established law, thereby entitling her to the defense of qualified immunity, I also find that defense of immunity is supported by the provisions of the Child Protective Services Law (CPSL) of 1975, 11 P.S. § 2201, et seq

MacLean v. Secor

876 F. Supp. 695 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Feb 14, 1995

established at the time of his confinement, defendants are entitled to qualified immunity. … Defendants, however, are entitled to qualified immunity on this claim because, at the time plaintiff was detained, this liberty interest was not a “clearly established” right.

Bamont v. Pennsylvania Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals

163 F. Supp. 3d 138 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Feb 16, 2016

analyzing qualified immunity under Saucier v. … established.” 50 Based on our analysis, Defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity for Bamont’s claims in Counts I & II. ii.

Mitchell v. Street

415 F. Supp. 2d 490 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Aug 16, 2005

QUALIFIED IMMUNITY Finally, Defendant Mayor Street asserts that he is entitled to qualified immunity. “Qualified immunity is available to government officials performing discretionary functions.” Lodato v. … If no constitutional right would have been violated were the allegations established, there is no necessity for further inquiries concerning qualified immunity.

O'Donnell v. Tinicum Township

110 F. Supp. 3d 571 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jun 11, 2015

Qualified Immunity Gaul also argues that he is entitled to summary judgment on the grounds of qualified immunity. … Whether Gaul Violated a Clearly-Established Right “An official sued under § 1983 is entitled to qualified immunity unless it is shown that the official violated a statute or constitutional right that was ‘clearly established

Giddings v. Joseph Coleman Center

473 F. Supp. 2d 617 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Feb 7, 2007

If a constitutional violation is found, the second inquiry of qualified immunity is whether the right allegedly violated was clearly established enough that it “would be clear to a reasonable [state official] that his conduct … Clear to a Reasonable Officer The second prong of the Saucier qualified immunity test asks whether the constitutional right violated was clearly established enough at the time of the violation that it “would be clear to a

Vines v. Howard

676 F. Supp. 608 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Oct 5, 1987

To be protected by qualified immunity, an official must establish that he acted in good faith, without intending to violate any of plaintiff’s constitutional rights. … The constitutional right at issue must be clearly established. Harlow, 457 U.S. at 818 , 102 S.Ct. at 2738 , 73 L.Ed.2d at 410 .