Case law

Jackson v. Government of the District of Columbia

District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 11, 2024

“Even if there is a genuine dispute about the reasonableness of an officer’s use of force, he is protected by qualified immunity unless his force violated clearly established law.” Hedgpeth v. … Officer Lombardini asserts that he is entitled to qualified immunity. Def.’s Mot. at 14–15. Jackson contends that the officer violated clearly established law and is not entitled to qualified immunity.

Wesby v. District of Columbia

841 F. Supp. 2d 20 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jan 18, 2012

When determining whether a given constitutional right was “clearly established” for the purposes of establishing qualified immunity, “we look to cases from the Supreme Court and [the United States Court of Appeals … However, “[i]f the law was clearly established, the [qualified] immunity defense ordinarily should fail, since a reasonably competent public official should know the law governing his conduct.”

Williams v. Miniard

District Court, S.D. Ohio · Apr 27, 2023

The Magistrate Judge properly concluded that the rights to be free from unduly tight restraints and from gratuitous violence when already restrained is clearly established for purposes of qualified immunity. … Kiefer, 310 F.3d 937, 944 (6th Cir. 2002) (“The right to be free from ‘excessively forceful handcuffing’ is a clearly established right for qualified immunity purposes.”); Kostrzewa v.

Waldon v. Borough of Upper Darby

77 F. Supp. 2d 655 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Dec 9, 1999

The officers are entitled to qualified immunity from suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 if their conduct did not violate a clearly established statutory or constitutional right of Plaintiffs, of which a reasonable officer would … A qualified immunity claim is ordinarily decided by first determining whether a violation of a constitutional or statutory right is alleged, and then next determining whether that right was clearly established and would have

Jones v. Fountain

121 F. Supp. 2d 571 · District Court, E.D. Texas · Jul 7, 2000

The court will now proceed to the qualified immunity discussion. IV. QUALIFIED IMMUNITY In his third motion for summary judgment, defendant argues Jones’ claims are barred by qualified immunity. … In assessing a qualified immunity claim the district court must determine “whether (1) the plaintiffs have asserted a constitutional or statutory violation; (2) the law regarding the alleged violation was clearly established

Allah v. Goord

405 F. Supp. 2d 265 · District Court, S.D. New York · May 13, 2005

Qualified Immunity Standard The doctrine of qualified immunity shields government officials from civil damages liability as long as “ ‘their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights … However, if a violation is proven, “the next sequential step is to ask whether the right was clearly established.” 27 Qualified immunity is applicable unless the official’s conduct violated a clearly established constitutional

Landis v. Cardoza

515 F. Supp. 2d 809 · District Court, E.D. Michigan · Sep 28, 2007

Qualified Immunity The Officers claim they are entitled to summary judgment on Landis’s § 1983 claim based on the doctrine of 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 established statutory or

Knight v. Trotter

District Court, E.D. Michigan · Jun 5, 2023

Since Hughes acknowledges that Knight possessed a clearly established Fourth Amendment right to be free from excessively forceful handcuffing, qualified immunity does not preclude him from standing … Kiefer, 310 F.3d 937, 944 (6th Cir. 2002) (recognizing that the “right to be free from ‘excessively forceful handcuffing’ is a clearly established right for qualified immunity purposes”).

Peavy v. Dallas Independent School District

57 F. Supp. 2d 382 · District Court, N.D. Texas · Aug 31, 1999

Qualified Immunity Defendant Kress contends that he is entitled to qualified immunity for the al~ leged violation of the Act and the alleged constitutional violation. … Conversely, an official’s conduct is not protected by qualified immunity if, in light of clearly established pre-existing law, it was apparent the conduct, when undertaken, would be a violation of the right at issue.

Harris v. Huston

53 F. Supp. 2d 1027 · District Court, E.D. Wisconsin · Jun 21, 1999

The defendant has submitted a Rule 50 motion based on the defense of qualified immunity. The defendant argues that Mr. … I reserved ruling on the defendant’s qualified immunity motion partly because the defendant’s tardiness in raising the qualified immunity defense had effectively defeated its goal of sparing a public employee the cost of

Rogers v. Cofield

908 F. Supp. 2d 277 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Dec 12, 2012

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER RE: QUALIFIED IMMUNITY MARIANNE B. BOWLER, United States Magistrate Judge. … was clearly established at the time of the defendant’s alleged violation.”

Shepard v. Hansford County

110 F. Supp. 3d 696 · District Court, N.D. Texas · May 22, 2015

QUALIFIED IMMUNITY Qualified immunity is a doctrine designed to protect government officials sued in their individual capacity from liability for civil damages, so long as “their conduct does not violate clearly established … If a defendant successfully establishes the qualified immunity defense, he or she is completely immune from suit. See id.

Hutchins v. Peterson

139 F. Supp. 2d 575 · District Court, D. Vermont · Mar 14, 2001

Qualified immunity as to federal claims Movants’ second argument, that they are entitled to qualified immunity because Hutchins’ rights were not clearly established, is similarly without merit. 11 “The doctrine of qualified … “Without a doubt, the right not to be arrested without probable cause is clearly established” for purposes of the doctrine of qualified immunity.

López-Ramos v. Municipality of Cataño

556 F. Supp. 2d 59 · District Court, D. Puerto Rico · Feb 21, 2008

The sec ond inquiry is whether the law was clearly established at the time of the violation. See Savard, 338 F.3d at 27 . … Rather, it makes the blanket and general assertion that its officers are entitled to immunity because their conduct did not violate any clearly established constitutional rights. 1.

Baptiste v. Griffin

District Court, S.D. New York · Oct 31, 2019

Therefore, a qualified immunity analysis is not necessary. … violate any clearly established right of Plaintiff.

Mathis v. Bess

763 F. Supp. 58 · District Court, S.D. New York · May 14, 1991

The doctrine of qualified immunity protects government officials sued in their personal capacities from liability for discretionary acts provided their conduct did not violate any “clearly established” federal statutory or … Benjamin, a single unpublished decision of a lower court, “clearly established” the law of this circuit for purposes of qualified immunity. See Hawkins v. Steingut, 829 F.2d 317, 321 (2d Cir.1987).

Wilson v. Kittoe

229 F. Supp. 2d 520 · District Court, W.D. Virginia · Nov 7, 2002

Clearly Established The Fourth Amendment right to be free from arrest in the absence of probable cause is clearly established. See Henderson, 223 F.3d at 273 . … But, “if the test of ‘clearly established law' were to be applied at this level of generality, ... plaintiffs would be able to convert the rule of qualified immunity ... into a rule of virtually unqualified liability.”

Burt v. Carlson

752 F. Supp. 346 · District Court, C.D. California · Oct 12, 1990

There are two kinds of immunity. One is absolute immunity, and the other is qualified or good-faith immunity. … Under qualified immunity, government officials are shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would

Lawrenz v. James

852 F. Supp. 986 · District Court, M.D. Florida · Apr 6, 1994

Thus, if the applicable law was not clearly established, or if the law was clearly established and Defendant James did not violate that law in terminating Plaintiff, he is entitled to qualified immunity. … CONCLUSION Defendant James is entitled to qualified immunity because he did not violate clearly established law in terminating Plaintiff.

Estate of Lopez v. Gelhaus

149 F. Supp. 3d 1154 · District Court, N.D. California · Jan 20, 2016

The defense 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 reasonable … Based on the review of the cases above, the court finds *1165 that it was clearly established, and thus, qualified immunity does not shield Gelhaus from liability.