Case law

Baughman v. Garcia

254 F. Supp. 3d 848 · District Court, S.D. Texas · May 26, 2017

A plaintiff seeking to overcome qualified immunity must satisfy a two-prong inquiry by showing: “(1) that the official violated a statutory or constitutional right, and (2) that the right was ‘clearly established’ at the … For purposes of qualified immunity, “[a] clearly established right is one that is sufficiently clear that every reasonable official would have understood that what he is doing violates that right.” Mullenix v.

Keese v. United States

632 F. Supp. 85 · District Court, S.D. Texas · Feb 10, 1985

These are clearly objective circumstances that prima facie establish that the agents were acting within the scope of their authority. … Moreover, it is clearly insufficient to establish bad faith.

Chacko v. Texas a & M University

960 F. Supp. 1180 · District Court, S.D. Texas · Apr 4, 1997

When determining whether qualified immunity is available, the actions of a reasonably competent official are assessed in the light of the legal rules that were clearly established at the time the action was taken. … In order to defeat an official’s assertion of qualified immunity, a plaintiff must show that: (1) the plaintiff has asserted a violation of a constitutional right; (2) this right was clearly established at the time of the

Moore v. City Of Houston

District Court, S.D. Texas · Aug 28, 2019

Government officials are entitled to qualified immunity from liability for civil damages “unless [(1)] the official violated a statutory or constitutional right [(2)] that was clearly established … Qualified immunity protects an officer even for reasonable mistakes in judgment. See Ashcroft v.

Billops v. Sandoval

401 F. Supp. 2d 766 · District Court, S.D. Texas · Nov 23, 2005

Plaintiff alleges, based on the foregoing, that the Doctor Defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity as their conduct was not objectively reasonable in light of the law clearly established at the time of Billops’ … Consequently, the Court concludes that Plaintiff has sufficiently alleged the violation of a clearly established constitutional right and dismissal on qualified immunity grounds is improper at this time.

Holland Ex Rel. Holland v. City of Houston

41 F. Supp. 2d 678 · District Court, S.D. Texas · Jan 7, 1999

Qualified Immunity Boling asserts that he has qualified immunity from the plaintiffs’ § 1983 claims. … A defendant “is entitled to qualified immunity unless he violated a constitutional right that was clearly established at the time of his conduct.” Black *696 well v.

Richmond v. Coastal Bend College District

883 F. Supp. 2d 705 · District Court, S.D. Texas · Aug 1, 2012

When a government official has pleaded the defense of qualified immunity, the burden is on the plaintiff to establish that the official’s conduct violated clearly established law. Id. … Qualified Immunity The doctrine of qualified immunity affords protection against individual liability for civil damages to officials “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional

Matthews v. High Island Independent School District

991 F. Supp. 840 · District Court, S.D. Texas · Jan 22, 1998

Qualified Immunity Finally, Chiaravalloti argues for dismissal of the claims against him on the grounds of qualified immunity. … Since Plaintiffs’ allegations are sufficient to support a violation of clearly established law, Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Chiaravalloti on qualified immunity grounds is DENIED. III.

Martin v. Texas Department of Protective & Regulatory Services

405 F. Supp. 2d 775 · District Court, S.D. Texas · Dec 16, 2005

The Qualified Immunity Standard “Qualified immunity protects officials in the course of performance of their discretionary duties unless their conduct violates a ‘clearly established [federal] statutory or constitutional … immunity, based on a claim that the right to family integrity was not clearly established, will fail.

Clark v. La Marque I.S.D.

184 F. Supp. 2d 606 · District Court, S.D. Texas · Jan 4, 2002

The Supreme Court explained the standard for qualified immunity in Harlow v. … Thus, before proceeding against a defendant claiming qualified immunity, the Court must determine whether (1) the plaintiff alleges a Constitutional violation; (2) the law regarding the alleged violation was clearly established

Becerra v. Asher

921 F. Supp. 1538 · District Court, S.D. Texas · Apr 4, 1996

“Unless the plaintiffs allegations state a claim of violation of clearly established law, a defendant pleading qualified immunity is entitled to dismissal before the commencement of discovery.” Mitchell v. … immunity because they would not have violated Juan's clearly-established rights.

Davenport v. Rodriguez

147 F. Supp. 2d 630 · District Court, S.D. Texas · May 9, 2001

Qualified Immunity Officer Rodriguez makes a claim for qualified immunity. The Fifth *638 Circuit has developed a two-step process for the examination of a claim of qualified immunity. … The right to be free from arrest without probable cause is clearly established. See Beck v.

Owens v. Board of Regents of Texas Southern University

953 F. Supp. 781 · District Court, S.D. Texas · Jul 3, 1996

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.” … Even if an official’s conduct violated a clearly established constitutional right, he is entitled to qualified immunity if the conduct was objectively reasonable. Salas v. Carpenter, 980 F.2d at 310 .

S.N.B. v. Pearland Independent School District

120 F. Supp. 3d 620 · District Court, S.D. Texas · May 28, 2014

14 “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 … And a single district court décision from outside this Circuit does not clearly establish any such right.

Wagner v. TEXAS a & M UNIVERSITY

939 F. Supp. 1297 · District Court, S.D. Texas · Sep 10, 1996

Qualified Immunity Defendants West and Smith assert that they are entitled to qualified immunity in this case. … When determining whether qualified immunity is available, the actions of a reasonably competent official are assessed in the light of the legal rules that were clearly established at the time the action was taken.

Roventini v. Pasadena Independent School District

981 F. Supp. 1013 · District Court, S.D. Texas · Aug 7, 1997

Qualified immunity shields government officials performing discretionary functions from liability for suits brought against them in their personal capacities unless their conduct violates clearly established statutory or … 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.”

Blackmon v. KUKUA

758 F. Supp. 2d 398 · District Court, S.D. Texas · Dec 2, 2010

In Valigura, the Fifth Circuit held that Eighth Amendment law with respect to similarly excessive temperatures was “clearly established” for purposes of qualified immunity because “the contours of these rights were sufficiently … Whether Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity depends on whether their conduct was objectively reasonable in light of this clearly established law. Mace, 333 F.3d at 624 .

Casanova v. City of Brookshire

119 F. Supp. 2d 639 · District Court, S.D. Texas · Sep 7, 2000

A defendant "is entitled to qualified immunity unless he violated a constitutional right that was clearly established at the time of his conduct." Blackwell, 34 F.3d at 302-03 ; see Harper 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.

Shankle v. Texas City

885 F. Supp. 996 · District Court, S.D. Texas · May 4, 1995

Even if the Plaintiffs stated a cognizable claim which could establish that either or both the Mayor and Chief of police somehow violated a Constitutionally protected right, these Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity … This objective-reasonableness test affords qualified immunity protection to “all but the plainly incompetent or those who knowingly violate the law.” Malley v.

Drain v. Galveston County

999 F. Supp. 929 · District Court, S.D. Texas · Mar 30, 1998

Qualified Immunity Cooper also claims that he is entitled to qualified immunity. … 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