Case law

Makani v. Brewer

District Court, N.D. Texas · Apr 6, 2023

The “clearly establish” 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 the … This is true “even when ... a court decides only the clearly-established prong of the [qualified immunity] standard.” Tolan v. Cotton, 572 U.S. 650, 657, 134 S.Ct. 1861, 188 L.Ed.2d 895 (2014).

Freeman v. Valdez

District Court, N.D. Texas · Feb 6, 2020

They then filed a Motion for Summary Judgment Based on Qualified Immunity [Doc. … The purpose of qualified immunity is to protect government officials from suit and liability for civil damages “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights

Gray

District Court, N.D. Texas · Mar 17, 2026

violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” … However, Gray’s claims falter at the next step of qualified immunity because he does not provide any factual basis that the Defendants’ behavior was not “objectively reasonable under clearly established law at the time

Jimerson v. Lewis

District Court, N.D. Texas · Apr 23, 2021

In evaluating a qualified immunity claim, courts apply a two-prong analysis to determine the following: (1) whether there is a violation of a constitutional right and (2) whether the right was “clearly established at the … A right is clearly established when “the contours of the right are sufficiently clear that a reasonable official would understand what he is doing violates the right.” Linicomn, 902 F.3d at 533.

Barron

District Court, N.D. Texas · Feb 13, 2026

“Qualified immunity protects public officials from suit unless their conduct violates a clearly established constitutional right.” Brumfield v. … Barron has not met his burden of pleading facts overcoming McLane’s defense of qualified immunity. He has presented no case or body of cases clearly establishing the violations as to any of his claims. See Dkt.

Debra Waller as Personal Representative of the Estate of Rodney Howard v. Terry County, Texas

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

And, despite its name, when qualified immunity applies, it is absolute. Id. So unless a defendant violates rights that are “clearly established,” the plaintiff cannot recover under Section 1983. … But only if the violation is of a right that was “clearly established” at the time can the plaintiff defeat the defendant’s invocation of qualified immunity. Morrow v.

Strain v. Kaufman County District Attorney's Office

23 F. Supp. 2d 698 · District Court, N.D. Texas · Jun 8, 1998

While the Court found Defendants were entitled to qualified immunity for the civil rights violations, the Court also set forth in detail the objective reasonableness of the Defendants’ conduct in this case. Id. at 6-8. … The record establishes that Byford needlessly multiplied these proceedings.

Wightman v. Jones

809 F. Supp. 474 · District Court, N.D. Texas · Dec 7, 1992

In fact, it is now established that in the context of a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 , absolute judicial immunity does not bar such equitable relief against state court judges. Pulliam v. … At common law, one of the rationales for establishing judicial immunity was the strong interest in protecting the finality of judgments from continual collateral attack. Pulliam v.

Thompson v. Texas Department of Public Safety

District Court, N.D. Texas · Jul 9, 2024

To defeat qualified immunity, Plaintiffs 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.” … Thus, Richter did not violate a clearly established right and is entitled to qualified immunity on Plaintiffs’ unlawful seizure (extension of the traffic stop without reasonable suspicion) claims.

Purdy v. Director

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

Qualified Immunity The doctrine of qualified immunity protects public officials from liability for civil damages insofoar as their conduct does not violate clearly … constitutional right; and (2) whether the right at issue was “clearly established” at the time of the defendant’s alleged conduct.

Jones

District Court, N.D. Texas · May 29, 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 … As to the second prong of the qualified immunity analysis, no clearly established right was violated.

Baker v. Coburn

District Court, N.D. Texas · Mar 11, 2021

Officer Coborn is entitled to qualified immunity because the Plaintiffs have failed to identify “clearly established law.” 1. … Accordingly, Plaintiffs have failed to establish that Officer Coborn’s action violated clearly established law and thus Officer Coborn is entitled to qualified immunity. C.

Keith v. Texas Tech Medical - Clements Unit

District Court, N.D. Texas · Apr 23, 2025

Qualified Immunity. Burch also seeks to dismiss Keith’s claims based upon his affirmative defense of qualified immunity. … Keith clearly established that such circumstances, if proven true, violate the Eighth Amendment.

Bryant v. Gillem

District Court, N.D. Texas · Oct 31, 2019

However, such cases have little to no bearing on whether law is clearly established for purposes of qualified immunity. Cf. Camreta v. … immunity – is clearly established.

Sunderland v. Chavez

District Court, N.D. Texas · Feb 23, 2023

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

Santana-Cerano v. Rule

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

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

E-Systems, Inc. v. Islamic Republic of Iran

491 F. Supp. 1294 · District Court, N.D. Texas · Jun 19, 1980

Thus § 1609 establishes as a general rule that the property of a foreign state is immune from attachment, with two exceptions. … Contemporaneous public documents clearly reflect this understanding of the immunity waiver provision on the part of the Department of State and the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations. . . .

Urias

District Court, N.D. Texas · Apr 20, 2026

Qualified Immunity Bars Plaintiff’s Claims. Alternatively, Urias’s claims are barred by Auldridge’s qualified immunity defense, raised in his Motion. … 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.

Stinson v. Jones

District Court, N.D. Texas · Apr 29, 2025

 Was “the right at issue … ‘clearly established’ at the time of the alleged misconduct”? Morrow v. … Halstead also discussed clearly established law as to racial retaliation claims, see id. at 420 – and it set out clearly established law as to the deliberate indifference required to subject McGinnis to liability under

Biggers

District Court, N.D. Texas · May 14, 2026

Feb. 7, 2025) (“Relying on the second qualified immunity prong, the district court ruled that silencing a speaker ‘for an alleged decorum violation’ does not ‘clearly’ violate the First Amendment. … Biggers bears the burden to demonstrate the inapplicability of the qualified immunity defense.