Case law

Jimenez v. City of Sacramento

District Court, E.D. California · May 8, 2025

The Officers Are Not Entitled to Qualified Immunity. 5 Defendants also argue that they are entitled to qualified immunity. … “For purposes of qualified 22 immunity's clearly established prong, there does not have to be a case directly on 23 point.” D'Braunstein v. Cal.

Simpson v. Hines

730 F. Supp. 753 · District Court, E.D. Texas · Nov 8, 1989

If a reasonable police officer in the position of the defendant police officers would have known his or her use of force violated the clearly established law, it is objectively unreasonable. Graham v. … This court finds, taking the plaintiffs’ allegations as true, that a reasonable police officer in the position of the defendant police officers, would have known that the actions taken in the jail cell violated clearly established

Williams v. Austen

District Court, N.D. California · Sep 16, 2021

Dkt. 20 at 13-15. 10 The defense of qualified immunity protects government officials “from liability for civil 11 damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory … Courts may consider these two questions in either order, and a favorable determination for 15 the defendant on either establishes qualified immunity.

Schifanelli v. Loveday

District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 31, 2026

Qualified immunity “Government officials enjoy qualified immunity from suit under [Section] 1983 unless their conduct violates clearly established law.” Zorn v. Linton, No. 25-297, 2026 WL 795469, at *2 (U.S. … June 9, 2025) (denying a motion for summary judgment on the basis of qualified immunity in a case that did not involve a drug-sniffing dog because Rodriguez is clearly established law).

Bonett v. Gualtieri

District Court, M.D. Florida · Dec 29, 2022

denial of summary judgment based on qualified immunity.” … was clearly established at the time of Cook’s alleged misconduct.

Hoefling v. City of Miami

876 F. Supp. 2d 1321 · District Court, S.D. Florida · Jul 13, 2012

“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.” Behrens v. … Plaintiff has not met his burden of showing that Officer Roque and Sergeant Gonzalez are not entitled to qualified immunity because he has not shown that Defendants violated his “clearly established” rights.

Sanders v. District of Columbia

522 F. Supp. 2d 83 · District Court, District of Columbia · Nov 8, 2007

Qualified immunity “shields State officials from liability for their discretionary functions ‘insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would … step of the qualified immunity analysis.

Khansari v. City of Houston

14 F. Supp. 3d 842 · District Court, S.D. Texas · Apr 9, 2014

’s Fourth Amendment rights, the court turns directly to the second analytical step of the qualified immunity analysis: whether that right was clearly established when the actions at issue occurred. … January 26, 2010), plaintiffs acknowledge that [f]or the purposes of the qualified immunity analysis, “ ‘clearly established’ means that the ‘contours of the right’ are ‘sufficiently clear that a reasonable official would

Liebenstein v. Crowe

826 F. Supp. 1174 · District Court, E.D. Wisconsin · Sep 4, 1992

Once a public official has raised the defense of qualified immunity,, the plaintiff bears the burden of establishing the existence of the clearly established right that he claims was violated. Abel v. … The use of expert testimony is particularly ill-suited to defeat qualified immunity, especially when there is no clearly established law that the defendants violated.

Carter v. Diamond URS Huntsville, LLC

175 F. Supp. 3d 711 · District Court, S.D. Texas · Mar 30, 2016

“The ‘clearly established’ standard does not mean that official’s conduct is protected by qualified immunity unless ‘the very action in question has previously been held unlawful.’” … The officer is “entitled to qualified immunity if his or her conduct was objectively reasonable in light of the legal rules that were clearly established at the time of his or her actions,” even if the conduct violated the

Timmon v. Wood

633 F. Supp. 2d 453 · District Court, W.D. Michigan · Apr 21, 2008

Applying those clearly established rules to this case, the dispositive issue with respect to qualified immunity is whether Defendants acted with the intent to silence Plaintiff’s viewpoint or whether they acted with the intent … If Defendants acted with intent to silence Plaintiffs viewpoint then they violated clearly established law and would not be entitled to qualified immunity.

(PC) Anderson v. Becerra

District Court, E.D. California · Jan 17, 2020

Harris, 935 F.3d 670, 675-76 (9th Cir. 2019) (stating that dismissal on 25 immunity grounds may qualify as a strike for failure to state a claim where the immunity defense 26 is clear on the face of the complaint); Washington … the face of the complaint, and 3 the entirety of the complaint is dismissed for a qualifying reason under the PLRA[]”).

Blakely v. Andrade

360 F. Supp. 3d 453 · District Court, N.D. Texas · Jan 23, 2019

If the court answers both the constitutional violation and clearly established questions in the affirmative, the officer is not entitled to qualified immunity. Lytle , 560 F.3d at 410 . … For purposes of qualified immunity, "clearly established" means that the "contours of the right" are "sufficiently clear that a reasonable official would understand that what he is doing violates that right."

Campos v. Van Ness

52 F. Supp. 3d 240 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Sep 29, 2014

The doctrine of qualified immunity is also not restricted to questions of established law. … Therefore, the questions relating to qualified immunity are whether Van Ness’ conduct violated rights of Martins or Campos that were “ ‘clearly established’ at the time of the challenged conduct,” July 27, 2008, Plumhoff,

Young v. District of Columbia

107 F. Supp. 3d 69 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jun 2, 2015

Cir. 2015) (“To defeat a defense of qualified immunity, a plaintiff must show not only that an official ‘violated a constitutional right’ but also that 'the right was clearly established' at the time of the violation.”) … 12 clearly established at the time,” Lash, 2015 U.S.

Van Deelen v. City of Eudora, Kan.

53 F. Supp. 2d 1223 · District Court, D. Kansas · Jun 29, 1999

At the Rule 12(b)(6) stage, qualified immunity protects defendants performing discretionary functions from individual liability unless, on the face of the complaint, the plaintiff alleges the violation of “clearly established … that right was clearly established at the time of the alleged violation.”

CITADEL WELLWOOD URBAN RENEWAL LLC v. BOROUGH OF MERCHANTVILLE

District Court, D. New Jersey · Nov 27, 2023

“Qualified immunity shields government officials from civil damages liability unless the official violated a statutory or constitutional right that was clearly established at the time of … ‘clearly established’ at the time of the challenged conduct.”

Hudson v. Maloney

326 F. Supp. 2d 206 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Jul 23, 2004

Qualified immunity attaches to discretionary conduct of government officials that “does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Harlow v. … Forsyth, 472 U.S. 511, 528 , 105 S.Ct. 2806 , 86 L.Ed.2d 411 (1985) (officers immune unless their actions were “clearly proscribed” by established law).

Anselmo v. County of Shasta

873 F. Supp. 2d 1247 · District Court, E.D. California · Jun 8, 2012

“[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 should have … If a right is clearly established, a public official is granted qualified immunity only if a reasonable official would not have known that his conduct violated the clearly established right. See id.

Harris v. Eichbaum

642 F. Supp. 1056 · District Court, D. Maryland · Sep 2, 1986

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____ By defining the limits of qualified immunity essentially … Forsyth that: “Unless 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.