Case law

Barry v. Luzerne County

447 F. Supp. 2d 438 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Aug 9, 2006

“The doctrine of qualified immunity shields government officials from civil liability as long ‘as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have … “Where the [Pickering] balancing factors weigh heavily in favor of the employee, the law is clearly established and qualified immunity is unavailable.” Id. (quoting Ceballos v.

United States v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania

394 F. Supp. 261 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · May 30, 1975

The law of the Third Circuit clearly establishes that the APA does not confer subject matter jurisdiction. Chaudoin v. Atkinson, 494 F.2d 1323, 1328 (3d Cir. 1974); Getty Oil Co. v. … Penney clearly declared § 1361 not to confer subject matter jurisdiction “where otherwise none exists.” 319 F. Supp., at 1030 .

Schlier v. Rice

630 F. Supp. 2d 458 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Oct 9, 2007

Defendants Are Not Entitled to Qualified Immunity Defendants assert that they are entitled to qualified immunity from Plaintiffs’ claims. … A defendant has the burden to establish that he is entitled to qualified immunity. See Beers-Capitol v. Whetzel, 256 F.3d 120 , 142 n. 15 (3d Cir.2001). The qualified immunity inquiry proceeds in two steps.

Dyson v. Kocik

564 F. Supp. 109 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 30, 1983

The defendants’ summary judgment motion initially raises a qualified or good faith immunity defense. This defense was most recently defined by the United States Supreme Court in Harlow v. … If the law was clearly established, the immunity defense ordinarily should fail, since a reasonably competent public official should know the law governing his conduct.

N.N. v. Tunkhannock Area School District

801 F. Supp. 2d 312 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Jul 8, 2011

They raise the affirmative defenses of absolute immunity and qualified immunity. … Harrisburg County Police Dept., 91 F.3d 451, 462 (3d Cir.1996) (absolute immunity). Because no money damages are sought against Ide, Skumanick, and Mitchell, neither absolute nor qualified immunity applies.

Joseph M. v. Northeastern Educational Intermediate Unit 19

516 F. Supp. 2d 424 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · May 15, 2007

Qualified Immunity Additionally, the Supervisor Defendants argue that they enjoy qualified immunity. … With regard to the federal claims, public officials generally enjoy qualified immunity for their actions unless those actions violate clearly established constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would know.

Francis v. Northumberland County

636 F. Supp. 2d 368 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Jul 7, 2009

At this juncture, we address Warden Reish's argument for qualified immunity. … was clearly established.”

Pennsylvania v. Susquehanna Area Regional Airport Authority

423 F. Supp. 2d 472 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 21, 2006

The taking is a governmental action and does not qualify as a form of market participation. … The court observes that neither Supreme Court nor Third Circuit jurisprudence has clearly articulated the parameters of the market participant exception to Parker immunity. For example, in City of Columbia v.

Mills v. City of Harrisburg

589 F. Supp. 2d 544 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Dec 2, 2008

Qualified immunity protects a law enforcement officer who has violated a plaintiff’s rights if the rights were not “clearly established” when the officer acted. … Accordingly, Bair and Blas-ko are entitled to qualified immunity. 9 .

John G. v. Northeastern Educational Intermediate Unit 19

490 F. Supp. 2d 565 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · May 15, 2007

Qualified Immunity Additionally, the Supervisor Defendants argue that they enjoy qualified immunity. … With regard to the federal claims, public officials generally enjoy qualified immunity for their actions unless those actions violate clearly established constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would know.

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

488 F. Supp. 2d 450 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · May 14, 2007

In her capacity as police officer and complaining witness, Hopkins is, at best, entitled to qualified immunity. See Kalina v. … No. 20, ¶¶ 9, 31-33) are problematic to an assertion of qualified immunity.

Barasky

District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Dec 18, 2025

Barasky avers that Defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity because they acted unreasonably and violated his clearly established right not to be arrested or detained without probable cause. … Qualified immunity is applicable unless the official's conduct violated a clearly established constitutional right. Montanez v.

D.N. Ex Rel. Nelson v. Snyder

608 F. Supp. 2d 615 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 31, 2009

Qualified Immunity Qualified immunity protects a state actor who has committed constitutional violations if the plaintiffs rights were not “clearly established” when the individual acted. Pearson v. … The court finds that Snyder and Watts are not entitled to qualified immunity.

Werkheiser v. Pocono Township

210 F. Supp. 3d 633 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Sep 28, 2016

Specifically, Hess and Bengel argued that they were entitled to qualified immunity because the law regarding Plaintiffs rights was not clearly established. I rejected this argument. Werkheiser v. Pocono Twp., 2013 U.S. … immunity.

DOMINIC J. v. Wyoming Valley West High School

362 F. Supp. 2d 560 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 22, 2005

to qualified immunity with respect to Plaintiffs’ Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment claims. 2 A public official subject to suit pursuant to § 1983 may be entitled to the defense of qualified immunity. … Because of the absence of a constitutional violation, the Court need not proceed further in determining whether Defendant Tribendis is entitled to qualified immunity.

Kohn v. SCHOOL DIST. OF CITY OF HARRISBURG

817 F. Supp. 2d 487 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Sep 22, 2011

The doctrine of qualified immunity protects government officials from liability on federal civil-rights claims insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established constitutional rights of which a reasonable person … Courts conduct a two-part analysis for a qualified immunity defense: whether the defendants’ conduct violated a constitutional right, and if it did, whether that right was clearly established at the time. Mierzwa v.

Kuchka v. Kile

634 F. Supp. 502 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Nov 22, 1985

Therefore, at most, defendants possess a qualified immunity. Id. … Plaintiff does not establish why his First Amendment claims cannot be brought pursuant to § 1983.

O'Donnell v. Pennsylvania Department of Corrections

790 F. Supp. 2d 289 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · May 16, 2011

long-standing, and clearly established principles regarding governmental immunity, we will grant the Department of Corrections’ motion for summary judgment with respect to these claims. … In order to make out a prima facie case of discrimination under the Act, 11 a plaintiff must establish the following elements: “(1) that he or she has a disability; (2) that he or she is otherwise qualified to perform the

Cipriani v. Lycoming County Housing Authority

177 F. Supp. 2d 303 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Dec 14, 2001

Qualified Immunity Defendants contend that the court erred by denying Pepperman and Montgomery qualified immunity on plaintiffs First Amendment claim. In Rouse v. … “[A] court must deny the claim [for qualified immunity] if the law is clearly established, ‘since a reasonably competent public official should know the law governing his conduct’ unless [she] can either demonstrate extraordinary

Flanagan v. Shively

783 F. Supp. 922 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Jan 16, 1992

Federal officials do not lose qualified immunity from a Bivens action unless violation of federal regulation bears upon or implicates a clearly established constitutional right. … Plaintiff does not sufficiently allege violation of any clearly established constitutional right, thus entitling defendants to qualified immunity from his allegations.