Case law

Aspinall v. Thomas

118 F. Supp. 3d 664 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Jan 12, 2015

If there was a violation of a constitutional right and the right was clearly established, then qualified immunity does not apply. … have failed to demonstrate that the right was not clearly established, the eourt cannot conclude that the defendants are entitled to qualified immunity.

Williams v. Bitner

359 F. Supp. 2d 370 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Feb 22, 2005

This doctrine, known as “qualified immunity,” provides not only a defense to liability, but “immunity from suit.” Hunter v. Bryant, 502 U.S. 224, 227 , 112 S.Ct. 534 , 116 L.Ed.2d 589 (1991); Mitchell v. … And none are protected by qualified immunity.

John Doe v. Pa. State Univ.

336 F. Supp. 3d 441 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Aug 21, 2018

Whether the Individual Defendants Are Entitled to Qualified Immunity Mr. Shaha, Ms. Feldbaum, and Mr. Peters argue that Mr. Doe's claim against them should be dismissed on qualified immunity grounds. … Roe was "clearly established." 70 Therefore, this Court will dismiss the individual capacity claims against Mr. Shaha, Ms. Feldbaum, and Mr. Peters. 71 III. CONCLUSION For the reasons stated above, Mr.

Mariano v. Borough of Dickson City

40 F. Supp. 3d 411 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Aug 22, 2014

“A right is clearly established for qualified immunity purposes where its contours are sufficiently clear that a reasonable official would understand that what he is doing violates that right.” Id. … They do not indicate what exactly they believe is not “clearly established” in law such that qualified immunity is appropriate, but simply assert that the doctrine applies.

Berkley Specialty Insurance Company v. Masterforce Construction Corp.

District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Jan 26, 2021

judgment on the pleadings.27 Berkley asserts that it is entitled to judgment in its favor as, for five reasons, it owed no duty to indemnify Masterforce.28 First, Berkley contends that Masterforce’s conduct does not qualify … Galloway, 483 F.3d 258, 271 (4th Cir. 2007) (noting that, under the qualified immunity standard, a constitutional right is not clearly established when there are “conflicting decisions” in that area); Soares v.

Brautigam v. Fraley

684 F. Supp. 2d 589 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Feb 4, 2010

and official immunity and remain immune from suit except as the General Assembly shall specifically waive the immunity. … The court specifically distinguished the immunity for an employee of the Commonwealth versus the immunity conferred by statute upon the employee of a municipality: We note that the immunity defense provided by the General

Doe v. Schuylkill County Courthouse

District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 14, 2024

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. … Pa. 2015) (denying qualified immunity where “the defendants have failed to demonstrate that the right was not clearly established”).

Pugh v. Mooney

District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Jul 23, 2024

Pugh also cites several cases discussing qualified immunity to argue that sovereign immunity does not apply. These cases are inapposite. Sovereign immunity and qualified immunity are distinct concepts. … Children & Youth Servs., 577 F.3d 186, 191 (3d Cir. 2009) (“The doctrine of qualified immunity protects government officials from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established

Cayenne v. Tobyhanna Township, PA

District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Aug 5, 2024

to qualified immunity. … the right was clearly established.

Cuvo v. Pocono Mountain School District

District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 21, 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 which a … 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.

McKnight v. Kingsboro

District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Sep 6, 2024

At this stage of the litigation, these averments are sufficient to establish that Defendants Ferrari and Heine violated clearly established law for the purposes of qualified immunity. See Dayoub v. … Additionally, the “clearly established” test relates only to a qualified immunity, not a sovereign immunity, analysis. Brautigam, 684 F.

Cramer v. Bohinski

District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 6, 2023

Alternatively, The defendants assert that they are entitled to qualified immunity because the rights allegedly violated were not clearly established at the time of the violation. (Id.) … the right was clearly established.

Aguilar v. Moyer

District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Jan 26, 2023

the right was clearly established. … Moyer is entitled to qualified immunity.

Mojica Carrion v. Wetzel

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

Defendants argue that Mojica Carrion’s claims are barred by qualified immunity because the constitutional right which he contends was violated was not clearly established until after the incident underlying his lawsuit … clearly established by Procunier); Martin v.

Donahue v. City of Hazleton, PA

District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Aug 3, 2020

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 … immunity at this time since “[i]t was clearly established by [Baker v.

Billups v. Penn State Milton S. Hershey Medical Center

910 F. Supp. 2d 745 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Nov 20, 2012

Immunity Finally, the Court will address whether Drs. … Choudhary, Crowell, and Dias are absolutely immune from liability. B.

Booher v. Wakefield

District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Aug 26, 2025

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 … the right was clearly established.

Vorobyev v. Bloomsburg University of Pennsylvania

District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Oct 31, 2022

Moreover, we find that the law was not clearly established at the time of Wolfe’s alleged violative act; therefore, Wolfe is shielded by the doctrine of qualified immunity. … the right was clearly established.

Banks v. Booher

District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 5, 2025

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 … Defendants do not explain their argument for qualified immunity, beyond asserting that plaintiffs’ claims do not violate a “clearly established right of Native American/Indigenous inmates to have

Jones v. Milsteen

District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Jul 27, 2023

Finally, on the second prong of the qualified immunity analysis, Jones’ right to be free from excessive force was clearly established at the time of the violation, because a robust consensus of persuasive Court of Appeals … doctrine, and its contention that qualified immunity bars the claim is without merit.