Case law

PIZARRO v. WETZEL

District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Oct 19, 2021

“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 … A qualified immunity analysis involves two questions: whether the official violated a statutory or constitutional right, and whether that right was clearly established at the time of the challenged conduct.

Eades v. Wetzel

District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Nov 22, 2019

The Court, therefore, concludes that any alleged violation of Plaintiff’s right to privacy under the facts alleged was not a clearly established right under the second prong of the qualified immunity analysis. … established to defeat the application of qualified immunity.

Soto-Santana v. Wengen

District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · May 3, 2024

Finally, we conclude that Officer Wengen is entitled to qualified immunity. … To determine whether an official is entitled qualified immunity, a court must determine (1) whether the official violated a constitutional right, and (2) whether that right was clearly established.

Carver v. Talanca

District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Jan 13, 2025

The entirety of Plaintiffs’ qualified immunity argument is as 10 follows: “[t]his was a clear violation of Plaintiffs clearly established constitutional … rights and therefore qualified immunity does not apply.”

Parfaite v. Lippincott

District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Feb 26, 2024

After setting forth the standards applicable to qualified immunity, defendant Lippincott argues that she is entitled to qualified immunity because she did nothing unlawful or inconsistent with clearly established law: … Nothing Lippincott did violated clearly established law and for that reason, she is also entitled to qualified immunity.

Campana v. Muir

585 F. Supp. 33 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Jul 8, 1983

Because the Court finds, based on the doctrine of judicial immunity, that the defendant is immune from any liability for damages on the claims asserted in this action, summary judgment will be entered in defendant’s favor … This doctrine, which has its roots in common law, became firmly established in the federal system in 1872 when the Supreme Court decided Bradley v. Fisher, 13 Wall 335, 20 L.Ed. 646 (1872).

Cole v. Troy Borough

District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Jun 17, 2022

or constitutional right, and (2) that the right was ‘clearly established’ at the time of the challenged conduct.”37 A court has the “discretion to decide which of the two prongs of qualified-immunity analysis to tackle … persuasive authority in the Courts of Appeals.’”40 And “[u]nless the plaintiff’s allegations state a claim of violation of clearly established law, a defendant pleading qualified immunity is entitled to dismissal

Bailey v. Doe I

District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Aug 4, 2022

The Court will also deny Defendants’ assertion of qualified immunity. … for purposes of qualified immunity.”

Braderman v. Pennsylvania Housing Finance Agency

598 F. Supp. 834 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Dec 4, 1984

Oct. 21, 1983) establishes that PHFA is not an independent agency. … Clearly, a judgment entered against PHFA would not have to be paid out of state funds. Thus, the “most important factor in the determination of Eleventh Amendment immunity,” Blake v.

Picarella v. Brouse

District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Jan 14, 2020

“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 which a reasonable person … 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.

Haas v. Barto

829 F. Supp. 729 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Aug 11, 1993

However, his conduct did not rise to the level of using a weapon or clearly intending only to do serious bodily harm. … Under the Federal Tort Claims Act, he is immune from liability for his conduct, and the United States is the proper party-defendant. The United States is immune unless it expressly waives its sovereign immunity.

Vince v. Godlewski

District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 21, 2025

The doctrine of qualified immunity shields government officials performin discretionary functions “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person … Thus the defendant officers bear the burden of establishing that they are entitled to qualified immunity. Burns y. Pa. Dep't of Corr., 642 F.3d 163, 176 (3d Cir. 2011)(citing Harlow, 457 U.S. at 819).

Wallace

District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 19, 2026

Qualified Immunity Alternatively, defendants argue that Shearer is entitled to qualified immunity. … It is defendants’ burden to establish their entitlement to qualified immunity, see Halsey v.

Smith v. Mulvey

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

the right at issue was clearly established at the time of a defendant's alleged misconduct.” … If the right violated was “clearly established,” then the official is not entitled to immunity.

United States v. Mahler

567 F. Supp. 82 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Apr 26, 1983

Rohm & Haas Co., 448 U.S. 176, 187 , 100 S.Ct. 2601, 2609 , 65 L.Ed.2d 696 (1980), and “[ajbsent a clearly expressed legislative intention to the contrary, that language must ordinarily be regarded as conclusive.” … As explained by the Court in In Re Grand Jury Proceedings, Greentree, 644 F.2d 348, 350 (5th Cir.1981): [I]t is well established that the exception under the immunity statute, 18 U.S.C. § 6002 , which authorizes prosecution

Zugarek v. Southern Tioga School District

214 F. Supp. 2d 468 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Aug 22, 2002

Additionally, “Pennsylvania courts have recognized that school superintendents ... qualify as high public officials for purposes of this common law doctrine.” Smith, 112 F.Supp.2d at 425 (further citation omitted). … Only if conduct which is extreme or clearly outrageous is established will a claim be proven.’ ” Dixon, 2002 WL 1740583 , at *3 (quoting Shaner, 204 F.3d at 507 ) (further citation omitted).

Urda v. Sosko

District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Apr 9, 2024

the right at issue was clearly established at the time of a defendant's alleged misconduct.” … If the right violated was “clearly established,” then the official is not entitled to immunity.

McCollum v. Pries

District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Dec 19, 2024

Finally, Defendants argue that they are entitled to qualified immunity. … clearly established at the time of the violation. , 88 F.4th 275, 281 (3d Cir. 2023) (citation omitted).

Lopez v. Wetzel

District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Nov 30, 2022

Qualified immunity protects a state actor who has committed a constitutional violation if the plaintiff’s rights were not “clearly established” when the individual acted. Pearson v. … In denying qualified immunity, Judge Mehalchick credited those distinctions, reasoning that plaintiffs allege the DOC denied their “rights to mental health treatment,” which she found to be clearly established.

Krug v. Bloomsburg University

District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Feb 13, 2023

To overcome qualified immunity, a plaintiff must show “(1) that the official violated a statutory or constitutional right and (2) that the right was ‘clearly established’ at the time of the challenged conduct.” … A right is “clearly established” for qualified immunity purposes only if “the contours of the right” are “sufficiently clear that a reasonable official would understand that what he is doing violates that right.”