Case law

Murphy v. Grochowski

District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Sep 28, 2022

constitutional rights violation, and if so, 2) whether those rights were “clearly established” at the time of the incident.). … Based on the defendants’ failure to fully develop their argument as to qualified immunity, the report finds that they have not established this affirmative defense. See Burns v. Pa.

Garanin v. City of Scranton

District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Dec 22, 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 … the right was clearly established.

Guthrie v. Wetzel

District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Jan 12, 2022

The doctrine of qualified immunity provides that government officials performing “discretionary functions,” are shielded from suit if their conduct did not violate a “clearly established statutory or constitutional right … if so, 2) whether those rights were “clearly established” at the time of the incident.

Rivera v. Redfern

District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Feb 21, 2023

Thus, the court may forego difficult constitutional issues and award qualified immunity to a defendant if it is apparent that the defendant did not violate rights that were clearly established at the time the defendant … “If neither source provides relevant caselaw, we consider whether ‘a robust consensus of cases of persuasive authority in the Court of Appeals could clearly establish a right for purposes of qualified immunity.’ Id.

Rzeszewski

District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 30, 2026

Garcia, and because no clearly established rights are at issue, Officer Rzeszewski is entitled to qualified immunity. Doc. 26 at 21—28. In opposition, Dr. … Garcia had a clearly established right to be free from arrest and prosecution absent probable cause, qualified immunity does not protect Officer Rzeszewski. Doc. 33 at 16-17.

Adamo v. Dillon

900 F. Supp. 2d 499 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Oct 16, 2012

Defendant Dillon is entitled to Qualified Immunity because it is not clearly established that failing to hold a pre-ejection hearing [for Adamo] is a deprivation of Due Process. 15. … Defendant Dillon is entitled to Qualified Immunity because it is not clearly established that failing to hold a pre-ejection hearing [for Gill] is a deprivation of due process. 23.

Kelly v. BOROUGH OF CARLISLE

815 F. Supp. 2d 810 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Sep 7, 2011

was contrary to clearly established law. … Accordingly, the Second Circuit held that even where a defendant violates a clearly established right, he may still be entitled to qualified immunity in limited circumstances. Id.; see also Friedman v.

Brown v. The Gap Inc.

District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Sep 10, 2024

that right was clearly established.” … [on] the clearly-established prong of the standard.”).

Mawson v. Pittston Police Department

145 F. Supp. 3d 363 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Nov 18, 2015

The defendant objects to the second prong of the qualified immunity analysis: whether the law was clearly established. (Doc. 93, p. 13). … Again, for the purposes of qualified immunity, the court must determine whether the facts — taken in the light most favorable to the non-moving party — establish a violation of clearly established law and that a reasonable

Barna v. Board of School Directors of the Panther Valley School District

143 F. Supp. 3d 205 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Nov 6, 2015

The Defendants are Entitled to Qualified Immunity “The doctrine of qualified immunity protects government officials ‘from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory … Qualified immunity attaches unless the official’s conduct violated such a clearly established right. Anderson v. Creighton, 483 U.S. 635, 640 , 107 S.Ct. 3034 , 97 L.Ed.2d 523 (1987).

Doll v. Pennsylvania State Police

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

Doll responds that Trooper Tremaine’s conduct violates clearly established law and thus Trooper Tremaine’s actions cannot be protected by qualified immunity. (Doc. 36, at 12-15). … “In light of a clearly established right, district courts tend to deny qualified immunity when the reasonableness of the force used is factually disputed.” Guthrie v. Guthrie, 216 F. Supp. 3d 590, 596 (W.D.

McLaine v. Lackawanna County

30 F. Supp. 3d 316 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Jul 3, 2014

Qualified immunity shields government officials from civil damages liability unless the official violated a statutory or constitutional right that was clearly established at the time of the challenged conduct_ [C]ourts may … grant qualified immunity on the ground that a purported right was not clearly established by prior case law, without resolving the often more difficult question whether the purported right exists at all....

Griffin v. Petrucci

District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Jul 15, 2025

Qualified immunity shields officials from liability for civil damages brought pursuant to section 1983 “so long as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable … the right was clearly established.

Zimmerman v. Corbett

195 F. Supp. 3d 695 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Jul 15, 2016

Qualified immunity is applicable unless the official’s conduct violated- a clearly established constitutional right. Pearson v. … Whether the right at issue is clearly established Having determined that Plaintiff alleged a constitutional violation, the Court turns the second prong of the qualified immunity analysis.

Cuvo v. Pocono Mountain School District

District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Dec 23, 2019

The doctrine of qualified immunity shields government officials from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which … A qualified immunity determination involves a two-pronged inquiry: (1) whether a constitutional or federal right has been violated; and (2) whether that right was “clearly established.” Saucier v.

Merring v. City of Carbondale, Pennsylvania

558 F. Supp. 2d 540 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 27, 2008

Qualified immunity does not apply where state officials violate “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Wright v. … If it was, the law regarding entry into a house to make an arrest is clearly established, and qualified immunity would not apply in the instant case.

Hollihan v. Pennsylvania Department of Corrections

159 F. Supp. 3d 502 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Jan 20, 2016

Qualified Immunity Qualified immunity protects a state actor who has committed constitutional violations if the plaintiffs rights were not clearly established when the indi *513 vidual acted. Pearson v. … The burden to establish qualified immunity rests with the defendant. Beers-Capitol, 256 F.3d at 142 n. 15.

Dull v. West Manchester Township Police Department

604 F. Supp. 2d 739 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 31, 2009

Haines, and Bixler are entitled to qualified immunity. … To determine whether a police officer enjoys qualified immunity, the court must ascertain whether the officer violated “clearly established statutory or constitu *752 tional rights of which a reasonable person would have

Brockway v. Shepherd

942 F. Supp. 1012 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Oct 4, 1996

III.QUALIFIED IMMUNITY A defendant is entitled to qualified immunity from a claim of a violation of a constitutional right if the right was not clearly established at the time of the alleged deprivation and the contours of … WMe the abstract right to be free from unreasonable seizure clearly is established, for qualified immunity purposes the right must be considered on a more specific level: “[t]he contours of the right must be sufficiently

Judge v. Shikellamy School District

135 F. Supp. 3d 284 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Sep 28, 2015

In determining whether a constitutional right was clearly established, a broad and generalized, declaration that a clearly established federal right was violated is insufficient. See Anderson v. … Put another way, for the purposes of the qualified immunity analysis, a right is considered clearly established if “it would be clear to a reasonable officer, that his conduct was unlawful in the situation he confronted.”