Case law

Figueroa v. Moyer

District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Apr 18, 2022

Also, as Judge Carlson found, (Doc. 23 at 14, 21-CV-595), in rejecting Moyer Sr.’s motion arguing that he was entitled to qualified immunity since “there is no clearly established law stating that government officials … Pa. 2017) (“At the pleading stage, ‘qualified immunity will be upheld on a 12(b)(6) motion only when the immunity is established on the face of the complaint.’”) (citation omitted).

Lutz v. Lavelle

809 F. Supp. 323 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Nov 25, 1991

There is, however, some disagreement as to when a prosecutor is entitled to absolute immunity and when he is entitled to qualified immunity. The leading case on prosecutorial immunity is Imbler v. … A review of the record in the instant case reveals that Defendant Webb is entitled to qualified immunity. *327 It is a well established principle that State officials sued pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 are entitled to qualified

Michalesko v. Freeland Borough

18 F. Supp. 3d 609 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Apr 29, 2014

Qualified immunity protects government officials when performing “discretionary functions ... if their conduct did not violate a clearly established statutory or constitutional right of which a reasonable person would have … Clearly established for purposes of qualified immunity means that the contours of the right must be sufficiently clear that a reasonable official *623 would understand that what he is doing violates that right.

Isbell v. Bellino

962 F. Supp. 2d 738 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Aug 27, 2013

A state actor *749 “sued in Ms individual capacity enjoys qualified immunity if Ms conduct does not violate clearly established or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” … could thus not be clearly established for purposes of a qualified immunity analysis.

Ridge v. Campbell

984 F. Supp. 2d 364 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Oct 25, 2013

The court will grant the motion for failure to state a claim and elect not to address the issue of qualified immunity at this time. … An officer will be denied qualified immunity only where he violates “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Harlow v.

Turiano v. Schnarrs

904 F. Supp. 400 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · May 5, 1995

The defense of qualified immunity, as discussed in greater detail below, concerns the existence of a plaintiffs clearly established rights. Harlow v. … Before a court analyzes a claim of qualified immunity, it first should determine whether a plaintiff has alleged “a viola *414 tion of a clearly established constitutional right.”

Carlson v. Beemer

225 F. Supp. 3d 297 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Dec 21, 2016

Qualified immunity protects a state actor who has committed a constitutional violation if the plaintiffs rights were not “clearly established” when the individual acted. Pearson v. … B, Clearly Established Law The second qualified immunity prong tasks the court to determine whether the right in question was “clearly established” at the time of the alleged violation. See Spady, 800 F.3d at 637 .

Mann v. Palmerton Area School District

33 F. Supp. 3d 530 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Jul 17, 2014

State actors sued in their individual capacity under § 1983 are entitled to qualified immunity “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person … In determining whether a defendant is entitled to qualified immunity, a court considers whether the official’s acts violated a constitutional or statutory right and (if so) whether that right was clearly established at the

Verney v. Dodaro

872 F. Supp. 188 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Jan 5, 1995

Qualified Immunity The Defendant employees contend that they are entitled to qualified immunity for their actions taken with regard to the Plaintiff. … It held that the claim failed to allege a violation of a clearly established constitutional right.

Luck v. Mount Airy 1, LLC

901 F. Supp. 2d 547 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Oct 4, 2012

Qualified immunity Commonwealth Defendants argue that they are entitled to qualified immunity. … clearly established .... ” Brown v.

Gross v. Cairo

District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Sep 15, 2022

Cairo has not established that he is entitled to qualified immunity. … Qualified immunity requires a two-prong inquiry: “(1) whether the facts alleged by the plaintiff show the violation of a constitutional right, and (2) whether the law was clearly established at the time of the violation

Verney v. Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission

881 F. Supp. 145 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 27, 1995

The test for qualified immunity was set forth by the Supreme Court in Harlow v. … “However, a motion to dismiss based on the defense of qualified 'immunity will prevail only if the actor’s immunity ié clear from the face of the complaint.” Roberts v.

Brickell v. Clinton County Prison Board

658 F. Supp. 2d 621 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Sep 10, 2009

Defendants’ Entitlement to Qualified Immunity Saucier v. Katz has mandated a two-step analysis concerning qualified immunity. … Defendants claim that they are entitled to qualified immunity, as they did “not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Harlow v.

WALKER-SERRANO BY WALKER v. Leonard

168 F. Supp. 2d 332 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Oct 9, 2001

It is a well-established legal principle that government officials may enjoy qualified immunity from suit. … was clearly established.

Democracy Rising PA v. Celluci

603 F. Supp. 2d 780 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 20, 2009

Individual Liability & 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. … The court finds that in 2007 plaintiffs’ rights were not clearly established. Therefore, the court concludes that defendants are properly shielded by the doctrine of qualified immunity.

Strickland v. Mahoning Township

647 F. Supp. 2d 422 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Jul 8, 2009

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. … For a qualified immunity analysis, therefore, the court must examine: 1) whether officials violated a constitutional right and 2) whether that right was clearly established at the time. Id.

Clifford v. Jacobs

739 F. Supp. 957 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Apr 25, 1990

If they were engaged, however, in executive duties, then they were entitled to merely qualified immunity, which would require the court to enquire whether their conduct ”violate[d] clearly established statutory or constitutional … However, once the official is determined to have only qualified immunity, then the court must determine whether he violated clearly established statutory or constitutional rights.

Smith v. Central Dauphin School District

419 F. Supp. 2d 639 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Sep 23, 2005

Furthermore, Defendants seek to assert a qualified immunity defense. (Defs.’ Br. in Supp. 20.) A qualified immunity defense may only be maintained by defendants sued in their individual capacity. … Government officials enjoy qualified immunity “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established constitutional or statutory rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Harlow v.

Rife v. Borough of Dauphin

625 F. Supp. 2d 212 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Sep 8, 2008

Qualified Immunity Defendants argue that qualified immunity shields Individual Defendants from liability. … The court concludes that Defendants have failed to establish qualified immunity at this early stage in the litigation.

Lang v. Pennsylvania Higher Education Assistance Agency

201 F. Supp. 3d 613 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Aug 23, 2016

Plaintiffs additionally argue in their motion that even if the Court finds issue preclusion to not apply, that PHEAA has not met its burden to establish it is entitled to Eleventh Amendment sovereign immunity. … In sum, both circuits’ tests clearly require courts to examine all of a state’s constitutional provisions, statutes, and regulations bearing on an entity in determining whether it qualifies as an arm of the state.