Case law

Hodge v. Zimmerman

District Court, N.D. Texas · Apr 8, 2025

Once an officer pleads qualified immunity, the plaintiff has the burden to establish that the officer violated the plaintiff’s clearly established federal rights. Argueta, 86 F.4th at 1088 (citing Estate of Davis v. … In short, an officer is entitled to qualified immunity “if there is no violation, or if the conduct did not violate law clearly established at the time.” Bailey v. Iles, No. 22-30509, 2023 WL 8062239 at *2 (5th Cir.

De Paz Gonzalez v. Duane

District Court, N.D. Texas · Mar 11, 2022

Qualified Immunity Qualified immunity insulates a government official from civil damages liability when the official’s actions do not “violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights … In analyzing whether an individual defendant is entitled to qualified immunity, the court considers whether plaintiff has alleged any violation of a clearly established right, and, if so, whether

Patricio Estrada v. Director, TDCJ-CID

District Court, N.D. Texas · Jul 31, 2025

Qualified immunity applies “when an official’s conduct ‘does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.’” White v. … the conduct was clearly established at the time.”

Tovar

District Court, N.D. Texas · Aug 25, 2026

To defeat a qualified immunity defense, the 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. … Two Prongs of Qualified Immunity “To overcome an official’s qualified immunity defense, a plaintiff must show that the evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to him, is sufficient to establish

Walker v. Hoffman

District Court, N.D. Texas · Feb 4, 2025

Finally, “[e]ven if the government official’s conduct violates a clearly established right, the official is 10Saucier’s two-step procedure for determining qualified immunity is no longer mandatory. … D In the alternative, the court holds that the Defendant Officers are entitled to qualified immunity under the “clearly established” prong of the qualified immunity analysis.

Dorado

District Court, N.D. Texas · Jun 24, 2026

Qualified Immunity Standard “The doctrine of qualified immunity protects government officials from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established … Plaintiff accuses Defendant of using excessive force, violating his Fourth Amendment rights and clearly established law, thus preventing qualifying immunity. ECF No. 21.

Lee v. McGuire

District Court, N.D. Texas · Aug 6, 2024

The second prong of qualified immunity necessitates that a plaintiff show that their constitutional right was clearly established at the time it was violated. … And even if the official’s conduct violated a clearly established constitutional right, the official is nonetheless entitled to qualified immunity if his conduct was objectively reasonable under the circumstances.

Adams v. McIlhany

593 F. Supp. 1025 · District Court, N.D. Texas · Sep 7, 1984

As the Court in Stump pointed out, even if the judge had acted in error or maliciously, his immunity would remain intact so long as he did not act clearly outside his jurisdiction. … The legislative record gives no clear indication that Congress meant to abolish wholesale all common law immunities____ The immunity of judges for acts within the judicial role is ... well established, and we presume that

Law v. Hunt County

830 F. Supp. 2d 211 · District Court, N.D. Texas · Nov 15, 2011

Unfortunately, plaintiffs complaint and briefs do not clearly state whether this case was brought against Berger in her individual or official capacity. … “In analyzing a claim under the FMLA, the question becomes whether the defendant ‘exercised sufficient control over Plaintiffs ability to take protected leave to qualify as [an] employer [] under the FMLA.” Id.

Sims v. Love

District Court, N.D. Texas · Sep 5, 2023

Qualified Immunity Qualified immunity insulates a government official from civil damages liability when the official’s actions do not “violate clearly established … that clearly established law.

James v. Texas Department of Human Services

818 F. Supp. 987 · District Court, N.D. Texas · Apr 22, 1993

The Supreme Court has construed the Amendment under principles of sovereign immunity to establish that a state is generally immune from any lawsuit brought in the federal courts. See Pennhurst State Sch. and Hosp. v. … The Court noted first that the expansive language creating a general waiver of immunity .to suit against the Authority sufficed only to establish consent to suit in the courts of the state.

Henderson v. New York Life, Inc.

991 F. Supp. 527 · District Court, N.D. Texas · Jun 23, 1997

Lumry wrote a final open letter documenting Henderson’s problems associated with her immune system. She has an immune deficiency (not AIDS) that is associated with an inability to fight off infections efficiently. … In conclusion, based on the foregoing law and the evidence before the Court, the Court finds that Henderson has failed to establish that she is a qualified individual with a disability under the ADA.

Darnell v. Jolly

District Court, N.D. Texas · Oct 30, 2019

“Qualified immunity provides government officials with immunity from suit ‘insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.’ … Thus, Defendant is not entitled to qualified immunity at this stage of the case since Plaintiff has shown that there is a genuine issue of material fact as to whether Defendant violated Plaintiff's clearly established constitutional

Tamborello v. Town of Highland Park, Texas

District Court, N.D. Texas · Jan 20, 2025

“The reasonableness of the official’s conduct and the degree to which the particular right in question was clearly established are thus merged into one issue for purposes of the qualified immunity analysis.” … Here, even if the Court were to find that Tamborello has alleged plausible violations of the Constitution, he fails to address qualified immunity’s clearly established prong, either by alleging facts that could

Pearson v. Gage

District Court, N.D. Texas · Sep 19, 2023

Qualified immunity shields a public official but only “‘insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.’” Roque v. … The Court finds the second prong of the qualified immunity analysis, whether the constitutional right was clearly established at the time of the violation, is also met. See Lytle v.

Brooks v. Taylor County

District Court, N.D. Texas · Mar 18, 2022

The officers moved for summary judgment on the basis of qualified immunity—a doctrine that shields officers unless they violated the plaintiff’s then-clearly established rights. … Qualified immunity applies “when an official’s conduct ‘does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.’” White v. Pauly, 137 S.

Tafolla v. Wacker

District Court, N.D. Texas · Mar 19, 2025

“Qualified immunity protects officers from suit unless their conduct violates a clearly established statutory or constitutional right.” Edmiston v. … Clearly Established Law However, plausibly pleading that Defendant used excessive force does not alone defeat a qualified immunity defense.

Harrison v. Partain

District Court, N.D. Texas · Sep 15, 2023

Qualified Immunity Qualified immunity insulates a government official from civil damages liability when the official’s actions do not “violate clearly established … that clearly established law.

Salinas v. Loud

District Court, N.D. Texas · Dec 14, 2022

Defendants here assert qualified immunity, which “shield[s] [government officials] from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights … in light of clearly established law at the time of the incident.”

Kelson v. City of Dallas

District Court, N.D. Texas · Dec 20, 2023

The “clearly establish[ed]” prong of the qualified immunity analysis “‘is better understood as two separate inquiries: [(1)] whether the allegedly violated constitutional rights were clearly established at the time of … , Kelson’s attempt to defeat qualified immunity also fails as to clearly established law.