Case law

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.

Baldwin v. University of Texas

945 F. Supp. 1022 · District Court, S.D. Texas · Nov 6, 1996

‘ELEVENTH AMENDMENT IMMUNITY The Eleventh Amendment bars any claims brought against a state or state agency unless Congress has abrogated the state’s immunity or the state has expressly waived its immunity to suit in federal … First, the plaintiff is required to establish a prima facie case wherein she must establish the elements of the discrimination claim. If the plaintiff proves her prima facie case, a presumption of discrimination arises.

Tolan v. Cotton

854 F. Supp. 2d 444 · District Court, S.D. Texas · Mar 31, 2012

In order to evaluate the “clearly established law” prong of the qualified immunity test, the court must ask whether, at the time of the incident, the law clearly established that such conduct would violate the right. … Although qualified immunity is called an affirmative defense, the defendant asserting qualified immunity does not have the burden to establish it.

Callis v. Sellars

953 F. Supp. 793 · District Court, S.D. Texas · Sep 5, 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.” … Whether an official’s conduct violated clearly established law, so as to preclude the application of qualified immunity, is essentially a legal question. White v.

Wilbert v. Quarterman

647 F. Supp. 2d 760 · District Court, S.D. Texas · May 11, 2009

Defendants Have Not Established A Basis For Dismissal On Qualified Immunity In Their Motion To Dismiss. … 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 rights of which

Nelson v. Payne

827 F. Supp. 1273 · District Court, S.D. Texas · Dec 29, 1992

QUALIFIED IMMUNITY DEFENSE Liability can only be imposed on the individual defendants if it is shown that they knew or should have known that their conduct violated a person’s clearly established constitutional rights. … The individual defendants have raised this qualified immunity defense and the Court finds that as a matter of law it should be sustained.

Thompson Ex Rel. Sustaita v. City of Galveston

979 F. Supp. 504 · District Court, S.D. Texas · Sep 19, 1997

QUALIFIED IMMUNITY The individual Defendants in this ease argue that they should not be subjected to suit in their individual capacities because they are protected by the doctrine of qualified immunity. … Clearly, if a plaintiffs claims do not specifically and clearly establish a constitutional violation, the claims against the individual Defendants must be dismissed.

Teitel v. University of Houston Board of Regents

285 F. Supp. 2d 865 · District Court, S.D. Texas · Dec 31, 2002

they are entitled to either official or qualified immunity. … “Clearly established,” for purposes of qualified immunity, means that “[t]he contours of the right must be sufficiently clear that a reasonable official would understand that what he is doing violates that right.”

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.

Baker ex rel. Baker v. Putnal

865 F. Supp. 389 · District Court, S.D. Texas · Oct 14, 1994

Plaintiffs allege that the Decedent had a clearly established right to due process of law prior to the unwarranted taking of his life, and that Defendant Putnal violated this right and lost the qualified immunity defense … Scherer, 468 U.S. 183 , 104 S.Ct. 3012 , 82 L.Ed.2d 139 (1984), in which the Court reaffirmed the principle that officials lose their qualified immunity by violating clearly established federal statutory rights.

Lori Wash. ex rel. J.W. v. Katy Indep. Sch. Dist.

390 F. Supp. 3d 822 · District Court, S.D. Texas · Jun 5, 2019

The Record Evidence on Qualified Immunity Qualified immunity protects government officials "from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights … To the extent that the claim is brought against Officer Paley, he is entitled to qualified immunity. Officer Paley's actions did not violate a clearly established constitutional "right to an education." Ms.

Barnstone v. McKeever

477 F. Supp. 108 · District Court, S.D. Texas · Sep 18, 1979

The Supreme Court has recently held that federal executive officials exercising discretion are entitled only to the qualified immunity specified in Scheuer v. … The doctrine of qualified immunity clearly shields these Defendants from any personal civil liability to the Plaintiff for their conduct in relation to him.

Finserv Casualty Corp. v. Settlement Funding, LLC

724 F. Supp. 2d 662 · District Court, S.D. Texas · Jul 13, 2010

Were Greenberg Traurig’s Actions Protected by Qualified Immunity? … Could an Exception to Qualified Immunity Apply? As discussed above, there are exceptions to the qualified immunity doctrine.

Carr v. Montgomery County

59 F. Supp. 3d 787 · District Court, S.D. Texas · Oct 6, 2014

If the allegations do not establish a violation of a constitutional right, the [official] is entitled to qualified immunity.... … The officer defendants assert qualified immunity to the claims against them. The district attorney defendants have asserted qualified immunity as to some claims and absolute immunity as to others.

Medina v. O'NEILL

589 F. Supp. 1028 · District Court, S.D. Texas · May 7, 1984

Finally, defendants aver that the doctrine of qualified immunity shields the good faith acts of the individually named federal defendants because their conduct did not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … Once the defendants establish this defense, the burden then shifts to the plaintiffs to prove that the defendants’ actions violated clearly established law. Harlow v.

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.

Almanza v. Salazar

33 F. Supp. 3d 747 · District Court, S.D. Texas · Aug 29, 2013

“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 person … unreasonable in light of the law that was clearly established at the time of the actions complained of.”

Garza v. Galena Park Independent School District

914 F. Supp. 1437 · District Court, S.D. Texas · Sep 1, 1994

Individual defendants sued in their individual capacity are entitled to qualified immunity unless they violated clearly-established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person knew or should have known … As discussed above, no constitutional right was involved in this case and the individual defendants are protected by qualified immunity.

Brown v. Board of Trustees Sealy Independent School District

871 F. Supp. 2d 581 · District Court, S.D. Texas · May 9, 2012

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 person … 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

Madison v. Houston Independent School District

47 F. Supp. 2d 825 · District Court, S.D. Texas · Apr 22, 1999

Under the doctrine of qualified immunity, governmental employees, when sued in their individual capacities, are immune from suit when their actions are objectively reasonable as measured by reference to clearly established … Whether the act complained of by the plaintiff violates clearly established rights is essentially a legal question. Id. A two-step process is used by the court in analyzing qualified immunity.