Case law

Worley v. Ewing

District Court, S.D. West Virginia · Aug 12, 2020

established right to overcome qualified immunity, purpose rather than knowledge is required...”). … Because Worley’s Amended Complaint fails to state a plausible violation of any clearly established constitutional right by these defendants, I FIND that they are entitled to qualified immunity on Worley’s claims against

Russell v. Butcher

District Court, S.D. West Virginia · Jul 17, 2020

Barring a showing by Plaintiff that Defendants violated a “clearly established right or law” with respect to hiring, training, and developing procedures, Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity on claims involving … ” ; , 556 U.S. at 677 (“[i]n the context of determining whether there is a violation of a clearly established right to overcome qualified immunity, purpose rather than knowledge is required...”).

Fitzpatrick v. McKnight

District Court, S.D. West Virginia · Jul 3, 2025

which could be characterized as fraudulent, malicious, or oppressive,” (ECF No. 15 at 7), but evidently forgot that he is not entitled to qualified immunity if his act was “in violation of clearly established statutory … If the plaintiff demonstrates the violation of a clearly established right or law, the employee is not immune from liability. Jd. at 767.

Jeffers v. Albright

District Court, S.D. West Virginia · Feb 28, 2023

Thus, if the WVRJCFA is shown to have “violated a clearly established right or law with respect to training, supervision, or retention of [the correctional officer], the WVRJCFA is not entitled to immunity … Va. 2017) (“qualified immunity is broad and protects all but the plainly incompetent or those who knowingly violate the law” (internal quotation marks and citations omitted)).

Walker v. Donahoe

District Court, S.D. West Virginia · Sep 27, 2019

Qualified immunity protects government officials from civil damages in § 1983 actions “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would … the qualified immunity analysis.

Durstein v. Alexander

District Court, S.D. West Virginia · Sep 20, 2022

Qualified Immunity Although qualified immunity is expansive, a government official “who performs an act clearly established to be beyond the scope of his discretionary authority … However, “in considering whether constitutional rights were clearly established for qualified-immunity purposes, we view the issue from ‘the layman’s perspective.’” Bland v.

Marcum v. Moles

District Court, S.D. West Virginia · Jul 15, 2022

Qualified immunity is an affirmative defense to Section 1983 that applies when an officer’s “conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights known to … Moles violated Marcum’s Eighth Amendment rights, the court must now resolve whether those rights were “clearly established” sufficiently to defeat Corporal Moles’ raising of qualified

Durstein v. Alexander

District Court, S.D. West Virginia · Dec 13, 2019

Qualified Immunity Although qualified immunity is expansive, a government official “who performs an act clearly established to be beyond the scope of his discretionary authority” is not entitled … Qualified Immunity In contrast to Count One, Count Three involves a public employer’s well-established authority to limit employees’ speech, so qualified immunity applies.

Douglas v. Galloway

568 F. Supp. 966 · District Court, S.D. West Virginia · Jul 25, 1983

The Governor bases his immunity claim on two different doctrines: the qualified immunity accorded state executive officials in § 1983 cases, as enunciated in Harlow v. … If the law was clearly established, the immunity defense ordinarily should fail, since a reasonably competent public official should know the law governing his conduct.

Better Government Bureau, Inc. v. McGraw

904 F. Supp. 540 · District Court, S.D. West Virginia · Oct 16, 1995

This is so because there is no requirement that the ‘exact right allegedly violated’ be previously ‘specifically recognized by a court’ in order for it [to] be held ‘ “clearly established” for qualified immunity purposes. … established” for qualified immunity purposes, but is also perhaps one of the more well-settled principles of constitutional jurisprudence.

Gilmore v. Bostic

659 F. Supp. 2d 755 · District Court, S.D. West Virginia · Sep 22, 2009

in a prison’s sex offender treatment program is not clearly established. … immunity from personal liability for official acts if the involved conduct did not violate clearly established laws of which a reasonable official would have known.

Gant v. United States Probation Office

994 F. Supp. 729 · District Court, S.D. West Virginia · Feb 13, 1998

In contrast to absolute immunity, qualified immunity shields a government official from liability for civil monetary damages if the official’s conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights … First, the court finds that Gant has failed to allege the violation of a clearly" established right.

Young v. Lacy

District Court, S.D. West Virginia · Sep 28, 2018

See Pearson, 555 U.S. at 243 (holding that “petitioners [were] entitled to qualified immunity because [they] . . . did not violate clearly established law.”). … establish, it is unnecessary for this court to analyze this portion of the qualified immunity inquiry.

Rhodes v. Smithers

939 F. Supp. 1256 · District Court, S.D. West Virginia · Sep 15, 1995

Qualified Immunity. … Qualified Immunity.

Blankenship v. Manchin

410 F. Supp. 2d 483 · District Court, S.D. West Virginia · Jan 18, 2006

Clearly Established Law The question under this second and final step in the qualified immunity analysis is “whether a reasonable [official] could have believed [the challenged conduct] to be lawful, in light of clearly established … It is important to note that the law is clearly established for qualified immunity purposes not only when “the very action in question has previously been held unlawful,” but .also when “pre-existing law” makes the “unlawfulness

Tasker v. Moore

738 F. Supp. 1005 · District Court, S.D. West Virginia · Mar 30, 1990

Thus, the threshold question to be answered by a court presented with a defense of qualified immunity is whether the law was “clearly established” at the time the action complained of was taken. … action is a violation) violates a clearly established right.

Hurt v. United States

914 F. Supp. 1346 · District Court, S.D. West Virginia · Feb 14, 1996

established" as to deprive the defendant of his qualified immunity. … We did not hold that the alleged conduct violated a protected ‘liberty’ interest, and we certainly did not hold that the defendant lost his qualified immunity by violating a ‘clearly established’ constitutional right.

Torian v. City of Beckley

963 F. Supp. 565 · District Court, S.D. West Virginia · May 7, 1997

Defendant Sweeney clearly is entitled to qualified immunity from liability in regard to the federal constitutional claim. … Law enforcement officers are immune from § 1983 liability arising from official discretionary acts that do not “violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.

Krider v. Marshall

118 F. Supp. 2d 704 · District Court, S.D. West Virginia · Oct 6, 2000

Doory, 14 F.3d 993, 995 (4th Cir.1994): “Qualified immunity shields a governmental official from liability for civil monetary damages if the officer’s ‘conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … The Court of Appeals has parsed out the qualified immunity analysis: “First, we must identify the right allegedly violated; second, we must decide whether the right was clearly established at the time of the alleged violation

Akers v. Caperton

797 F. Supp. 514 · District Court, S.D. West Virginia · Jul 30, 1992

Qualified Immunity The Defendants Gaston Caperton, Kenneth Dunn and Art Gleason assert the defense of qualified immunity. … Defendants assert an entitlement to qualified immunity since they were acting pursuant to statutory authority and they further allege that their conduct did not violate the Plaintiffs’ clearly established statutory or constitutional