Case law

Gilbert v. French

665 F. Supp. 2d 743 · District Court, S.D. Texas · Oct 19, 2009

reasonable “in light of clearly established law at the time of the conduct in question.” … The proof of record is not sufficient to overcome the officers’ assertion of qualified immunity. The Court grants Defendants Anderson and Fry summary judgment on qualified immunity. B.

Garza v. United States

881 F. Supp. 1099 · District Court, S.D. Texas · Jan 19, 1995

The Court must evaluate the objective reasonableness of the Defendants’ actions assessed in the light of “clearly established” legal rules existing at the time. Johnston v. … Moreover, for purposes of the qualified immunity defense, the Court must consider the status of the law in March 1992, when this incident occurred.

Burton v. Cameron County, Tex.

884 F. Supp. 234 · District Court, S.D. Texas · Apr 24, 1995

Stern pleaded qualified immunity as a defense. He did. The second question is whether Mr. … In failing to establish that his Fourteenth Amendment right to reasonable medical care was violated, Mr. Burton has failed to overcome Dr. Stern’s qualified immunity defense.

Reno v. Metropolitan Transit Authority

977 F. Supp. 812 · District Court, S.D. Texas · Aug 12, 1997

In analyzing a qualified immunity claim, the Court must first determine whether plaintiff has “ ‘allege[d] the violation of a clearly established constitutional right’ under currently applicable constitutional standards.” … Because Reno has not alleged the violation of a clearly established right, Moorer and Raymond are entitled to assert qualified immunity as a defense to Reno’s § 1983 claim. X.

Cephus v. Texas Health & Human Services Commission

146 F. Supp. 3d 818 · District Court, S.D. Texas · Nov 19, 2015

It clearly and unambiguously waives governmental immunity for governmental entities that are “employers,” defined in § 21.002(8) as including “a county, municipality, state agency, or state instrumentality, regardless of … For example, a plaintiff could show that she is clearly better qualified than the person who got the job, promotion, raise, etc., 6 or demonstrate that the employer’s articulated reason is false by showing inconsistency in

Bluitt v. Houston Independent School Dist.

236 F. Supp. 2d 703 · District Court, S.D. Texas · Oct 14, 2002

A defendant "is entitled to qualified immunity unless he violated a constitutional right that was clearly established at the time of his conduct." Blackwell v. … In considering a claim of qualified immunity, the court must make a two-step inquiry: First, the court must determine whether the plaintiff has alleged a violation of a clearly established constitutional right.

Gonzales v. Galveston Independent School District

865 F. Supp. 1241 · District Court, S.D. Texas · Oct 4, 1994

Qualified Immunity The individual Defendants in this case argue that they should not be subjected to suit in their individual capacities because they are protected by the doctrine of qualified immunity. … from suit in their individual capacities under the doctrine of qualified immunity.

Connelly v. Comptroller of the Currency

673 F. Supp. 1419 · District Court, S.D. Texas · Sep 15, 1987

Defendants deny these allegations, and alternatively claim qualified and absolute immunity. IV. … While officers of a governmental agency who perform judicial or prosecutorial functions may have absolute immunity, all other officers have only qualified immunity. Butz v.

Bluitt v. Houston Independent School District

236 F. Supp. 2d 703 · District Court, S.D. Texas · Oct 14, 2002

A defendant “is entitled to qualified immunity unless he violated a constitutional right that was clearly established at the time of his conduct.” Blackwell v. … In considering a claim of qualified immunity, the court must make a two-step inquiry: First, the court must determine whether the plaintiff has alleged a violation of a clearly established constitutional right.

Jingping Xu v. University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center

854 F. Supp. 2d 430 · District Court, S.D. Texas · Feb 22, 2012

If the alleged conduct amounts to a constitutional violation, the court proceeds to the “ ‘qualified immunity question’ of whether the right was clearly established at the time of the conduct.” Id. … County of Comal, 400 F.3d 284, 289 (5th Cir.2005) (“Even if the government official’s conduct violates a clearly established right, the official is nonetheless entitled to qualified immunity if his conduct was objectively

Jones v. HOUSTON COMMUNITY COLLEGE SYSTEM

816 F. Supp. 2d 418 · District Court, S.D. Texas · Sep 30, 2011

The HCC Officials’ Motion to Dismiss Based on Qualified Immunity “Qualified immunity shields federal and state officials from money damages unless a plaintiff pleads facts showing (1) that the official violated a statutory … This argument is addressed in Part V of the opinion, which addresses Rychlec's and Walker's argument that they are entitled to qualified immunity. 5 .

O'QUINN v. Chambers County, Tex.

636 F. Supp. 1388 · District Court, S.D. Texas · Jun 4, 1986

Qualified Immunity Defendant Morris asserts qualified immunity pursuant to Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 818 , 102 S.Ct. 2727, 2738 , 73 L.Ed.2d 396 (1982). … Plaintiffs claims of retaliation and intimidation under § 1983 and § 1985 state violations of clearly established law; therefore, defendant Morris is not immune from suit. V.

Bates v. University of Texas Medical Branch

425 F. Supp. 2d 826 · District Court, S.D. Texas · Dec 18, 2003

Defendant Clements moves for summary judgment based on qualified and official immunity. The existence of qualified immunity presents a question of law. Siegert v. … If so, “the next, sequential step is to ask whether the right was clearly established.” Id.

Bradford v. Edelstein

467 F. Supp. 1361 · District Court, S.D. Texas · Feb 5, 1979

Under the first branch, the qualified immunity defense is not available to officials if: one, the constitutional right allegedly violated was clearly established at the time of the officials’ challenged acts; two, the officials … Assuming for the moment that the above conclusion had not been made, the Defendants would still not be able to assert the qualified immunity defense established by the previously mentioned cases.

A.W. v. Humble Independent School District

25 F. Supp. 3d 973 · District Court, S.D. Texas · Jun 11, 2014

The qualified immunity analysis involves a two-step inquiry: (1) whether the plaintiff has alleged a violation of a constitutional right; and (2) whether that right was clearly established at the time of the alleged misconduct … Once a defendant asserts qualified immunity the burden shifts to the plaintiffs to bear the burden of negating the qualified immunity defense. See Newman, 703 F.3d at 761 . See also Schultea v.

Kacher v. Houston Community College System

974 F. Supp. 615 · District Court, S.D. Texas · Apr 29, 1997

In examining an official’s claim of qualified immunity, courts follow a two-step process. The first step is to ascertain whether the plaintiff alleges “the violation of a clearly established constitutional right.” … Whether the conduct of which the plaintiff complains violated clearly established law, so as to preclude the application of qualified immunity, is essentially a legal question. See White v.

Staten v. Adams

939 F. Supp. 2d 715 · District Court, S.D. Texas · Apr 8, 2013

Accordingly, defendants Hawkins and Oliver are entitled to qualified immunity. … Adams, therefore, is also entitled to qualified immunity on such claim.

Manley v. Texas Southern University

107 F. Supp. 3d 712 · District Court, S.D. Texas · May 12, 2015

Mar. 11, 1996) (unpublished), the court held that “to establish a claim under Title IX, the plaintiff must establish that an educational institution receiving federal assistance intentionally discriminated on the basis of … Its “sole purpose” is to “declare to the several States, that whatever those rights, as you grant or establish them to your own citizens, or as you limit or qualify, or impose restrictions on their exercise, the same, neither

K.U. Ex Rel. Michael U. v. Alvin Independent School District

991 F. Supp. 599 · District Court, S.D. Texas · Jan 6, 1998

Qualified immunity protects government officials from liability for conduct in the course of their official duties unless the alleged conduct violated clearly established law of which a reasonable public official would have … As discussed previously, Plaintiff has failed to establish the violation of a clearly established right. Therefore, Tiemann is entitled to qualified immunity in his individual capacity for claims under section 1983.

Roth v. Kiewit Offshore Services, Ltd.

625 F. Supp. 2d 376 · District Court, S.D. Texas · Dec 4, 2008

(establishing the FDIC); cf. Yearsley v. W.A. Ross Const. … Defendants clearly do not qualify as derivative sovereigns under either the Boyle or state sovereign immunity tests.