Case law

Imhoff v. Temas

67 F. Supp. 3d 700 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Dec 12, 2014

Qualified Immunity Government officials performing discretionary functions are entitled to immunity where their “conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person … Defendants make a cursory and broad sweeping claim to their entitlement to qualified immunity, contending that the allegations are insufficient to establish that any Defendant knowingly violated a clearly established constitutional

Malone v. ECONOMY BOROUGH MUNICIPAL AUTHORITY

669 F. Supp. 2d 582 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Nov 9, 2009

entitled to qualified immunity. … his or her actions violated clearly established law.”

Lach v. Robb

679 F. Supp. 508 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Feb 16, 1988

The relevant inquiry is the objective question whether a reasonable officer could have believed the defendant’s action to be lawful, in light of clearly established law. Id. at -, 107 S.Ct. at 3040 , 97 L.Ed.2d at 532 . … Because the university security officers have qualified immunity on the § 1983 claim, they are entitled to summary judgment on the § 1983 claim.

Tristani Ex Rel. Karnes v. Richman

609 F. Supp. 2d 423 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 25, 2009

The relevant actions taken by Richman and Houstoun were clearly “discretionary” for purposes of qualified immunity. … Richman and Houstoun are entitled to qualified immunity due to the law concerning these issues being not clearly established at the time of the discretionary actions in question.

Adams v. Springmeyer

17 F. Supp. 3d 478 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · May 5, 2014

A federal right is “clearly established” for purposes of qualified immunity if its contours are “sufficiently clear that a reasonable official would understand that what he [or she] is doing violates that right.” … The Plaintiffs cannot overcome the defense of qualified immunity by the simple expedient of “defin[ing] clearly established law at a high level of generality.”

Nykiel v. Borough of Sharpsburg

778 F. Supp. 2d 573 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 9, 2011

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 or constitutional rights of which … If the court *588 concludes that defendants’ conduct did violate a “clearly established” constitutional or statutory right, then it must deny defendant the protection afforded by qualified immunity. Id.

Schor v. NORTH BRADDOCK BOROUGH

801 F. Supp. 2d 369 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Jul 12, 2011

However, “[a]t the 12(b)(6) stage, qualified immunity will be found ‘only when the immunity is established on the face of the complaint.’ ” Cunningham v. N. … In other words, if on the face of the complaint, Plaintiff “fails to state a claim of a violation of a clearly established law, ‘a defendant pleading qualified immunity is entitled to dismissal before the commencement of

Goldhaber v. Higgins

576 F. Supp. 2d 694 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Sep 28, 2007

Although an absolute immunity inquiry does not entail a fact-specific examination of whether the actions taken by the person raising the immunity defense were in violation of clearly established law of which a reasonable … In the context of a qualified immunity analysis, the Court must “examine whether the alleged constitutional or statutory violations were ‘clearly established’ at the time of the alleged violations.” Blake v.

Hutchings v. ERIE CITY AND COUNTY, ETC.

516 F. Supp. 1265 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Jun 29, 1981

Admittedly, in appropriate instances, certain defendants in civil rights actions can be shielded from liability for damages by asserting a qualified good faith immunity defense. See, Wood v. … Therefore, we conclude that this affidavit by itself, is not sufficient to establish a good faith immunity defense for all of the defendants in this action.

Reed v. Marker

762 F. Supp. 652 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Apr 24, 1991

See 42 Pa.C.S. § 8522(b) (listing exceptions to sovereign immunity). The Supreme Court has not spoken clearly on this subject. Compare Parratt v. … A fortiori, a plaintiff in a civil suit cannot, merely by alleging that information in the affidavit is incorrect, strip an affiant of his qualified immunity. See Baker v.

Federal Trade Commission v. Commonwealth Marketing Group, Inc.

72 F. Supp. 2d 530 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · May 7, 1999

“Whether an official may prevail in his qualified immunity defense depends upon the ‘objective reasonableness of [his] conduct as measured by reference to clearly established law.’ ... … The individual counterclaim defendants argue that they are entitled to qualified immunity because defendants do not articulate the clearly established statutory and constitutional rights that they allegedly violated.

Caristo v. Blairsville-Saltsburg Sch. Dist.

370 F. Supp. 3d 554 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Feb 28, 2019

Plaintiff takes this language too literally, as two sentences earlier the Court stated the standard: "[t]he defense of qualified immunity can support the grant of a Rule 12(b)(6) motion only when the complaint itself establishes … the circumstances required for a finding of qualified immunity."

Munchinski v. Solomon

258 F. Supp. 3d 534 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Jun 27, 2017

to turn over this evidence was not clearly established constitutional law until 1995. … Because such a right was not clearly established in this Circuit at the time of Gibson’s conviction, Troopers Pennypacker and Reilly are entitled to qualified immunity with regard to their failure to inform the prosecutor

Scholl v. Pavilonis

District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Aug 5, 2025

immunity. … App’x 910, 915 (3d Cir. 2005) (complaint may be subject to dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6) based on qualified immunity “when the immunity is established on the face of the complaint” (cleaned up)).

Wargo v. MUNICIPALITY OF MONROEVILLE, PA

646 F. Supp. 2d 777 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Jul 27, 2009

Defendants’ Entitlement to Qualified Immunity Notwithstanding the foregoing conclusions, if one assumed, arguendo, that Defendants’ conduct did indeed constitute a § 1983 violation, they would still be afforded qualified … Qualified immunity will be granted when a reasonable officer in the position of a defendant could have believed that his or her conduct was lawful in light of the established law and information known to the officer at the

ROYER v. ROBERTSON

District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Sep 28, 2023

The first prong of the qualified immunity inquiry is therefore satisfied. Qualified immunity’s second prong asks whether the constitutional right that was violated was “clearly established.” … , be able to establish their entitlement to qualified immunity on a motion for summary judgment.”

Stoneking v. Bradford Area School District

667 F. Supp. 1088 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Aug 28, 1987

Qualified Immunity The standard to be applied in resolving a qualified immunity issue is well-settled. In Harlow v. … Thus, the pending question, in terms of the qualified immunity defense, is whether the plaintiff had a constitutional right which at the time of the alleged violation, was clearly established.

Taylor v. Altoona Area School District

513 F. Supp. 2d 540 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Aug 23, 2007

Instead, they argue that Adams, Myers and Rit-chey are entitled to qualified immunity. Id. … In this circuit, the state-created danger theory is clearly established law. Rivas, 365 F.3d at 201 (“In sum, we find that the pre-existing law of ‘state-created danger’ jurisprudence was clearly established.

Tatsch-Corbin v. Feathers

561 F. Supp. 2d 538 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · May 30, 2008

Feathers is clearly not immune to suit under § 1983, as it is a federal law, from which one cannot be immunized by state law. Therefore, Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss on the basis of immunity is denied. … Feathers is not immune based on Pennsylvania law and therefore the Motion to Dismiss based on immunity will be denied.

Crews v. Petrosky

509 F. Supp. 1199 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 19, 1981

We therefore conclude that Metro Petrosky is imbued with a qualified immunity in an action for damages under Section 1983. … Qualified immunity does not, however, provide a basis for dismissing the action at this juncture. The defense of qualified immunity of state officials is a matter which must be raised at trial. Skehan y.