Case law

Jeffrey Forter v. Randy Greer

536 F. App'x 724 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Aug 2, 2013

Moreover, defendants were entitled to qualified immunity and, as to the materials he eventually received, any injunctive relief would be moot. See Pearson v. … Callahan, 555 U.S. 223, 243 (2009) (state officers entitled to qualified immunity if their actions did not violate clearly established law); Warsoldier, 418 at 997 n.7 (“There exists little Ninth Circuit authority construing

Thomas v. Independence Township

463 F.3d 285 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Sep 14, 2006

plaintiff complains violated clearly established law." … Thus, "[u]nless the plaintiff's allegations state a claim of violation of clearly established law, a defendant pleading qualified immunity is entitled to dismissal before the commencement of discovery."

Hernandez v. Texas Department of Protective & Regulatory Services

380 F.3d 872 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Aug 31, 2004

The qualified immunity analysis is a two-step inquiry. First, a court must decide whether a plaintiff’s allegation, if true, establishes a violation of a clearly established right. Hare v. … 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 reasonable.

John Dee Carruth v. Robert J. Bentley

942 F.3d 1047 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Nov 7, 2019

Since there is no clearly established law establishing that Carruth’s alleged differential treatment violated the Equal Protection Clause, Bentley and Byrne are entitled to qualified immunity. … It is Carruth’s burden to establish that Byrne and Bentley are not entitled to qualified immunity and he has not met it.

Dennis Mize v. S. Tseng

703 F. App'x 547 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Nov 20, 2017

The district court properly dismissed Mize’s Eighth Amendment claim on the basis of qualified immunity because defendants’ conduct did not violate clearly established law. See Pearson v. … Callahan, 555 U.S. 223, 232 (2009) (defendant is entitled to qualified immunity unless the conduct at issue violated a clearly established constitutional right); Hope v.

Amanda Pierner-Lytge v. Montrell Hobbs

60 F.4th 1039 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Feb 23, 2023

Qualified Immunity “[O]fficers are entitled to qualified immunity under § 1983 unless (1) they violated a federal statutory or constitutional right, and (2) the unlawfulness of their conduct was clearly established at … No. 22-1976 Under prong two, Pierner-Lytge must demonstrate that it was clearly established in April 2020 that probable cause to arrest her for disorderly conduct did not exist.

Sarita Merricks v. Jeffery Adkisson

785 F.3d 553 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · May 15, 2015

The Qualified Immunity Defense and the Clearly Established Requirement The qualified immunity defense “provides ample protection to all but the plainly incompetent or those who knowingly violate the law.” … established prong of the qualified immunity defense.

Christopher Cantu v. City of Dothan, Alabama

974 F.3d 1217 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Sep 3, 2020

established, which entitled her to qualified immunity on the federal claim and state agent immunity on the state claim. … That means the same facts that establish an officer is not entitled to qualified immunity “also establish that [she] is not entitled to” state agent immunity. Hunter, 941 F.3d at 1284.

Charles Johnson, Jr. v. City of Atlanta

107 F.4th 1292 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jul 12, 2024

To show that qualified immunity is not appropriate, “the plaintiff must establish two things: (1) the defendant violated a constitutional right, and (2) that constitutional right was ‘clearly established … immunity, and we do not address the second prong—whether the law was clearly established. 7 C.

Charles Pierre v. Sandra Doorley City of Rochester

Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Nov 25, 2020

Pierre’s alleged constitutional right—timely access to post-conviction exculpatory evidence was and is not “clearly established.” Pearson v. … Callahan, 555 U.S. 223, 231 (2009) (explaining that qualified immunity “protects government officials from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional

Doctor Awanna Leslie v. Hancock County Board of Education

720 F.3d 1338 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jul 12, 2013

had was not clearly established. … “[T]o obtain qualified immunity, an official must first establish that he acted within his discretionary authority.”

Mihos v. Swift

358 F.3d 91 · Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · Feb 13, 2004

For a plaintiff to overcome a qualified immunity defense, he must show that his allegations, if true, establish a constitutional violation; that the right was clearly established; and that a reasonable official would have … Under Wood, then, a plaintiff could usually avoid an adverse pre-trial qualified immunity ruling by merely alleging (1) a constitutional violation (2) of clearly established law (3) by a public official

Isaiah Taylor v. Justin Schwarzhuber

132 F.4th 480 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Mar 17, 2025

Qualified immunity shields federal and state officials from monetary liability unless the law they ostensibly violated was clearly established at the time of the alleged offense. … The court awarded qualified immunity to Schwarzhuber and Rydzewski on Taylor’s initial stop and frisk claims be- cause Taylor did not provide cases showing the officers’ ac- tions violated clearly established law.

Chinchello v. Fenton

805 F.2d 126 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Nov 14, 1986

We acknowledge that on these facts the distinction between an “I didn’t do it” defense and a qualified immunity defense based on the absence of a clearly established legal duty is not as clear cut as in most other contexts … Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. at 818, 102 S.Ct. at 2738, instructed that qualified immunity is unavailable if the defendant’s conduct violated “clearly established ... statutory rights” and, based on Davis v.

Micah Jessop v. City of Fresno

918 F.3d 1031 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Mar 20, 2019

ANALYSIS “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 … Assuming that to be true, however, the City Officers are entitled to qualified immunity because that right was not clearly established.

Felton v. Polles

315 F.3d 470 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Dec 17, 2002

qualified immunity, not the merits. … In any event, for qualified immunity purposes, the test is whether Carter has asserted deprivation of a statutory right under clearly established law.

Walsh v. Franco

849 F.2d 66 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Jun 6, 1988

Qualified or “good faith” immunity shields government officials performing discretionary functions from liability “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which … In Robison , we outlined three ways in which an official could establish his entitlement to qualified immunity.

MIMICS, Inc. v. Village of Angel Fire

394 F.3d 836 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Jan 3, 2005

Usually, if the law was clearly established at the time of the relevant events, the qualified immunity defense will fail. Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 818-19 (1982). … Id. at 934. 8 The purpose of requiring the law to be clearly established in qualified immunity determinations is so state officials have fair notice that their conduct is unconstitutional.

Bacon v. Phelps

961 F.3d 533 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Jun 8, 2020

There are therefore two steps to the qualified immunity analysis: first, 15 whether the plaintiff established that his constitutional rights were violated, and 16 second, whether the right at issue was “clearly established … It did not. 6 The right therefore was not “clearly established” and the defendants hence are 7 entitled to qualified immunity. See Burns v.

Sorenson v. Ferrie

134 F.3d 325 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Feb 11, 1998

Claims of qualified immunity are reviewed under a two-step analysis. The first question is whether the plaintiff has asserted the violation of a clearly established constitutional right. … We hold only that, for purposes of qualified immunity in this civil case, the law was not clearly established on this question as of the date of this incident.