Case law

Shilling v. Crawford

536 F. Supp. 2d 1227 · District Court, D. Nevada · Mar 12, 2008

Plaintiff argues Defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity because they violated his clearly established rights under RLUIPA. 1. … Qualified immunity applies unless a defendant’s conduct violated “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Hope v.

Jesse Drewniak v. P U.S. Customs and Border Protection et al.

2021 DNH 020 · District Court, D. New Hampshire · Jan 26, 2021

Qualter’s Assertions of Qualified Immunity Do Not Warrant a Stay of All Pretrial Proceedings and Discovery Government officials are entitled to qualified immunity if “their conduct does not violate clearly … It is for this reason that, “[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

Saenz v. Lovington Municipal School District

105 F. Supp. 3d 1271 · District Court, D. New Mexico · Apr 30, 2015

established prong of the qualified immunity analysis. … Clearly Established Rights in the Qualified Immunity Analysis.

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.

Jones v. Han

993 F. Supp. 2d 57 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Jan 28, 2014

The qualified-immunity analysis employs a two-part test: (1) whether the facts alleged or shown by the plaintiff make out a violation of a constitutional right, and (2) whether the right at issue was clearly established at … “When a supervisor seeks qualified immunity in a § 1983 action, the ‘clearly established’ prong of the qualified immunity inquiry is satisfied when (1) the subordinate’s actions violated a clearly established constitutional

Batiste v. City of Beaumont

421 F. Supp. 2d 1000 · District Court, E.D. Texas · Mar 10, 2006

in reference to clearly-established law. … Consequently, the court must answer the first prong of the qualified immunity analysis (has plaintiff alleged violation of a clearly established federal right?) in the negative. As such, Lt.

Howard v. City Of Houston

District Court, S.D. Texas · Apr 18, 2022

Wade, 776 F.3d 368, 388 (5th Cir. 2015) (“It is well established that ‘municipalities have no immunity from damages liability flowing from their constitutional violations.’” (quoting Owen v. … Serrano and Vieira overstate the scope of any potential qualified immunity. See Pelletier, 516 U.S. at 312. Serrano was denied qualified immunity for allegedly conducting an unreasonable strip search.

Young v. City of Providence

396 F. Supp. 2d 125 · District Court, D. Rhode Island · Nov 2, 2005

Camilo-Robles, 151 F.3d at 6 . 5 More specifically, “the ‘clearly established’ prong of the qualified immunity inquiry is satisfied when (1) the subordinate’s actions violated a clearly established constitutional right, and … The Second Prong: Clearly Established Law The second prong of the qualified immunity analysis “deals with fair warning; it asks whether the law was clearly established at the time of the constitutional violation.”

Johnson v. Anhorn

416 F. Supp. 2d 338 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jan 31, 2006

The law became clearly established when the Third Circúit considered the issue of qualified immunity under similar circumstances in Rogers v. … Thus, because the right in question is clearly established, Anhorn must also be denied qualified immunity as to the final plaintiff, Johnson. d.

Remus-Milán v. Irizarry-Pagán

81 F. Supp. 3d 174 · District Court, D. Puerto Rico · Jan 28, 2015

Qualified immunity Defendants argue they are shielded by the doctrine of qualified immunity. … 2) whether that right was clearly established at the time of the defendant’s violation.

Heaney v. Roberts

147 F. Supp. 3d 600 · District Court, E.D. Louisiana · Dec 2, 2015

Roberts’ contention - with respect to qualified immunity is that his actions were objectively reasonable, and that on September 18, 2013, the law was not clearly established such that the actions he took constituted a First … The qualified immunity analysis is a two-step inquiry. First, a court must decide whether a plaintiffs allegation, if true, establishes a violation of a clearly established constitutional right. Wyatt v.

Cooper v. Brown

156 F. Supp. 3d 818 · District Court, N.D. Mississippi · Jan 12, 2016

prong” of the qualified immunity standard. … At any rate, Hope constitutes an established part of the U.S. Supreme Court’s qualified immunity jurisprudence, upon which this court is entitled to rely.

Zar v. Payne

760 F. Supp. 2d 779 · District Court, S.D. Ohio · Jan 12, 2011

Qualified Immunity The Defendants argue that the doctrine of qualified immunity forecloses the Plaintiffs claims for warrantless entry into her home and use of excessive force. … According to the doctrine of qualified immunity, “government officials performing discretionary functions are generally shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established

Wright v. Watson

209 F. Supp. 3d 1344 · District Court, M.D. Georgia · Aug 25, 2016

In the Eleventh Circuit, “the law can be clearly established for qualified immunity purposes only by decisions of the U.S. … “A right may be clearly established for qualified immunity purposes in one of three ways: ‘(1) case law with indistinguishable facts clearly establishing the constitutional right; (2) a broad statement of principle within

Prison Legal News, Inc. v. Simmons

401 F. Supp. 2d 1181 · District Court, D. Kansas · Nov 22, 2005

If plaintiffs make this showing, defendants may still be entitled to qualified immunity if they can show that their actions were nonetheless reasonable in light of the clearly established law. Roska ex rel. Roska v. … “A defendant who has appropriately pleaded the affirmative defense of qualified immunity may establish his right to immunity at any point in the proceeding, including at trial.” Guffey v.

Crehan v. Davis

713 F. Supp. 2d 688 · District Court, W.D. Michigan · May 18, 2010

“Ordinarily, a Supreme Court or Sixth Circuit [Court of Appeals] decision on point is necessary” to clearly establish the right in the relevant context and defeat qualified immunity. See Reynolds v. … With no clearly established law in place .... ”)). 10 *697 This means that Crehan cannot defeat Officer Davis’s qualified-immunity defense w+nt “clearly establishing” her general Fourth Amendment right to be free from excessive

Lachance v. Town of Charlton, Corp.

368 F. Supp. 3d 231 · District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 21, 2019

Defendants argue that they are entitled to qualified immunity. The First Circuit has adopted a two-part test to assess qualified immunity. … Thus, because Defendants do not argue they are entitled to qualified immunity for the common law claims, this Court need not address the existence of state qualified immunity.

Rosado v. Zayas

629 F. Supp. 911 · District Court, D. Puerto Rico · Jan 31, 1986

Defendant’s request for summary judgment on the grounds of qualified immunity is likewise DENIED. … A Section 1983 defendant claiming qualified or good faith immunity has the burden to prove that the law was not clearly established at the time of plaintiff’s alleged injuries, or that there exist extraordinary circumstances

Palmer, Brady v. Eisenhauer, Scott

District Court, W.D. Wisconsin · Aug 14, 2024

Qualified Immunity Officer Pride also contends that he is entitled to qualified immunity from Palmer’s claims because his conduct did not violate a clearly established … Qualified immunity protects government officials from liability for damages unless they “violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights.” Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 818 (1982).

Rodriquez v. Furtado

771 F. Supp. 1245 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Feb 11, 1991

The Court of Appeals for the First Circuit has recently interpreted these holdings to establish a two-part objective test for qualified immunity claims: First, if the right asserted by the plaintiff was “clearly established … Therefore, Detective Furtado is entitled to qualified immunity because a reasonable person in his position would not have known he was violating any clearly established constitutional rights of plaintiff. 2.