Case law

Sudah v. District of Columbia

District Court, District of Columbia · Jul 25, 2025

And if he fails to show that his asserted right was clearly established after a defendant officer asserts qualified immunity, courts properly grant the officer’s motion to dismiss. E.g., Turpin v. Ray, 319 F. … Cir. 2016) (affirming dismissal of a complaint on qualified-im- munity grounds when the plaintiff had not shown that the right at issue was clearly established at the time of the purported violation).

Brautigam v. Fraley

684 F. Supp. 2d 589 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Feb 4, 2010

and official immunity and remain immune from suit except as the General Assembly shall specifically waive the immunity. … The court specifically distinguished the immunity for an employee of the Commonwealth versus the immunity conferred by statute upon the employee of a municipality: We note that the immunity defense provided by the General

Bracken v. Okura

955 F. Supp. 2d 1138 · District Court, D. Hawaii · Jun 24, 2013

“Qualified immunity entitles [police officers] not to stand trial or face the other burdens of litigation’ on [a constitutional] claim, provided their conduct did not violate a clearly established federal right.” … to qualified immunity.

Simon v. City of New York

247 F. Supp. 3d 285 · District Court, E.D. New York · Mar 30, 2017

Instead, “[e]ven if the right at issue was clearly established in certain respects, . ’.. an- officer is still entitled to qualified immunity if officers of reasonable competence could disagree on the legality of the action … An officer may also establish qualified immunity by showing that, “notwithstanding a violation of a clearly established constitutional right, it was objectively reasonable for him to believe his actions did not violate this

Ready v. Heckart

District Court, N.D. Mississippi · Jan 11, 2022

Thomas, 843 F.3d 172, 177 (5th Cir. 2016) (“Qualified immunity protects officers from suit unless their conduct violates a clearly established constitutional right.”) (quoting Mace v. … Qualified immunity calls for a bifurcated test in which the court must first determine (1) “whether the plaintiff has alleged a violation of a clearly established statutory or constitutional right that was clearly established

Stasher v. City of Jackson, Mississippi

District Court, S.D. Mississippi · Sep 13, 2022

Unless the public official’s conduct violated a clearly established constitutional right, he is cloaked with qualified immunity. (citing Anderson v. Creighton, 483 U.S. 635, 640 (1987)). … Lamar County Texas, 717 F.3d 410, 422-24 (5th Cir. 2013) (Qualified immunity extends to public officials “to the extent their conduct is objectively reasonable in light of clearly established law.”).

Conforti v. City of Franklin

District Court, E.D. Wisconsin · Sep 13, 2021

In evaluating a law enforcement officer's entitlement to qualified immunity, a court asks whether the officer’s conduct violated a constitutional right and, if so, whether that right was clearly established at the time … The defendants contend that they are entitled to qualified immunity “because there is no clearly established law indicating that officers may be held liable for failing to intervene in the alleged conduct when they directly

Wiles

District Court, D. Kansas · Apr 3, 2026

Kan. 2015) (“Qualified immunity shields federal and state officials from money damages unless a plaintiff establishes (1) that the official violated a statutory or constitutional right and (2) that right was ‘clearly established … his right to seek judicial review under the KJRA was not “clearly established.”22 Accordingly, Dr. Rezac is entitled to qualified immunity on Dr. Wiles’s individual-capacity claim against her. Dr.

Tomberlin v. Clark

1 F. Supp. 3d 1213 · District Court, N.D. Alabama · Feb 19, 2014

Qualified Immunity The affirmative defense of qualified immunity has also been raised. … State and local officials are entitled to qualified immunity if they act within the discretion of their office and their conduct does not violate clearly established constitutional law. Harlow v.

Nusbaum v. Terrangi

210 F. Supp. 2d 784 · District Court, E.D. Virginia · Jul 19, 2002

Good Faith Qualified Immunity Qualified immunity provides that “government officials performing discretionary functions generally are shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly … If the law as to this issue with respect to these particular defendants is not clearly established for qualified immunity purposes, district court rulings would essentially have no practical effect; defendants could continue

Stone v. The Board of County Commissioners for the County of Quay

District Court, D. New Mexico · Aug 2, 2024

Thus, in general, when a defendant asserts the defense of qualified immunity on a motion to dismiss, the district court must stay discovery until the immunity issue is resolved. … (quoting Mitchell, 472 U.S. at 526 (“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

Rodriguez v. Connecticut

169 F. Supp. 2d 39 · District Court, D. Connecticut · Sep 4, 2001

Qualified Immunity Standard The prison officials seek summary judgment on the ground that they have qualified immunity as to claims brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 . … of qualified immunity.

Mediavilla v. City of New York

259 F. Supp. 3d 82 · District Court, S.D. New York · Sep 29, 2016

Qualified Immunity The. doctrine of qualified immunity “gives government officials breathing room to make reasonable but mistaken judgments” by immunizing them from suit for damages unless their conduct violated clearly established … Even if the right was clearly established at the time of the alleged violation, however, a defendant will still be entitled to qualified immunity if the defendant’s conduct was objectively reasonable in light of clearly established

Lyttle v. United States

867 F. Supp. 2d 1256 · District Court, M.D. Georgia · Mar 31, 2012

Because their alleged conduct violated clearly established law, the Court rejects their qualified immunity defenses. … Battiste, 261 Fed.Appx. at 202-03 (stating that qualified immunity for failure to train is abrogated only where the officer has fair warning of clearly established law). d.

Cyeef-Din v. Onken

District Court, D. New Mexico · Dec 6, 2021

Whether an official is entitled to qualified immunity turns on whether his conduct violated clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable official would have been aware. … Rickard, 572 U.S. 765, 778 (2014) (reaffirming that officials acting in discretionary capacities are generally entitled to qualified immunity unless their conduct violates clearly established law).

Morton v. City of Corinth, Mississippi

District Court, N.D. Mississippi · Jul 17, 2023

This is particularly true given that the individual Defendants have asserted the defense of qualified immunity at an early stage of these proceedings, which requires the Court to inquire into the reasonableness of each … Miss. 2011) (noting that qualified immunity protects public officials from suit “unless their conduct violates a clearly established constitutional right”).

Herrera v. The Village of Angel Fire

District Court, D. New Mexico · Nov 5, 2021

Whether an official is entitled to qualified immunity turns on whether his conduct violated clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable official would have been aware. … Rickard, 572 U.S. 765, 778 (2014) (reaffirming that officials acting in discretionary capacities are generally entitled to qualified immunity unless their conduct violates clearly established law).

Barajas v. City of Rohnert Park

159 F. Supp. 3d 1016 · District Court, N.D. California · Feb 5, 2016

Qualified Immunity “Qualified immunity shields federal and state officials from money damages” unless a plaintiff demonstrates “(1) that the official violated a,... constitutional right, and (2) that the right was ‘clearly … Nonetheless, the Court grants the Defendant officers qualified immunity on the narrow ground that it was not clearly established that the Randolph rule applies in the context of probation searches.

Mwimanzi v. Wilson

District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 8, 2022

“[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 the time.” … Turning to the second step of the qualified immunity analysis, the Court concludes that there was a robust consensus of authority as of January 2019 to clearly establish that such an excessively forceful and invasive search

Rhode Island Affiliate, American Civil Liberties Union, Inc. v. Rhode Island Lottery Commission

553 F. Supp. 752 · District Court, D. Rhode Island · Dec 16, 1982

Thus, the Court “[re-]defin[ed] the limits of qualified immunity essentially in objective terms,” holding that officials may be immune from damages “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory … The ACLU knew months before trial that O’Connell intended to rely on the qualified immunity defense.