Case law

Albers v. Whitley

546 F. Supp. 726 · District Court, D. Oregon · Aug 31, 1982

QUALIFIED IMMUNITY. Prison officials enjoy a qualified immunity from damages in § 1983 actions. Procunier v. Navarette, 434 U.S. 555 , 561— 62, 98 S.Ct. 855, 859-60 , 55 L.Ed.2d 24 (1978). … Here, there was no clearly established constitutional right to be free from the use of deadly force administered for the necessary purpose of quelling a prison riot and rescuing a hostage.

Hendricks v. New Albany Police Department

749 F. Supp. 2d 863 · District Court, S.D. Indiana · Nov 1, 2010

“The doctrine of qualified immunity protects government officials from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not *870 violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable … The applicability of qualified immunity is determined by a two-part inquiry established in Saucier v. Katz, 533 U.S. 194 , 121 S.Ct. 2151 , 150 L.Ed.2d 272 (2001).

Anthony v. Baker

808 F. Supp. 1523 · District Court, D. Colorado · Dec 10, 1992

A government official is entitled to qualified immunity unless that official violated clearly established constitutional or statutory rights of which a reasonable person should have known. Harlow v. … Once a defendant asserts qualified immunity, the plaintiff bears the burden of convincing the court that the law was clearly established at the time of the alleged wrongful conduct. Id.

Al-Mustafa Irshad v. Spann

543 F. Supp. 922 · District Court, E.D. Virginia · Jul 19, 1982

The defendants also raise the qualified immunity of Procunier v. Navarette, 434 U.S. 555 , 98 S.Ct. 855 , 55 L.Ed.2d 24 (1978), as a ground for dismissal. … Fitzgerald,U.S. -,-, 102 S.Ct. 2727, 2735-2738 , 73 L.Ed.2d 396 (1982) (eliminates subjective component of good-faith immunity). This federal immunity defense clearly does not violate due process.

Bradford v. City of Seattle

557 F. Supp. 2d 1189 · District Court, W.D. Washington · Apr 4, 2008

A public official who performs a discretionary function enjoys qualified immunity in a civil action for damages, provided that his or her conduct does not violate clearly established federal statutory or constitutional rights … The Supreme Court has established a two-part test for determining whether an official is entitled to qualified immunity.

Dziekan v. Gaynor

376 F. Supp. 2d 267 · District Court, D. Connecticut · Jun 13, 2005

Thus, qualified immunity shields law enforcement officers from suits for damages under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 , unless their actions violate clearly-established rights of which an objectively reasonable person would have known. … Thus, a qualified immunity defense is established where “(a) the defendant’s action did not violate clearly established law, or (b) it was objectively reasonable for the defendant to believe that his action did not violate

Carey v. Inslee

364 F. Supp. 3d 1220 · District Court, W.D. Washington · Mar 11, 2019

This does not mean that the subjective good faith defense is coextensive with qualified immunity. … For example, in a situation where a broad constitutional holding may or may not apply to a novel fact pattern, qualified immunity would apply if it was not "clearly established" that the holding extended to the new scenario

Wilson v. Wright

998 F. Supp. 650 · District Court, E.D. Virginia · Mar 19, 1998

Prison officials performing discretionary functions enjoy qualified immunity if their conduct “does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.”' … Thus, in determining whether a state actor is entitled to qualified immunity, a court “must (1) identify the right allegedly violated, (2) determine whether the constitutional right was clearly established at the time of

Shimomura v. Carlson

17 F. Supp. 3d 1120 · District Court, D. Colorado · Feb 14, 2014

Qualified Immunity. … Shimomura has met the first prong of the qualified immunity test by establishing that no probable cause existed to support the arrest. 2. Clearly Established Right.

Arreola v. City of Fort Worth

District Court, N.D. Texas · Jun 19, 2020

Qualified Immunity “Because qualified immunity is an immunity from suit rather than a mere defense to liability,” it is important to resolve “immunity questions at the … Ochsendorf further argues that the Fifth Circuit law is “far from clearly established” as to any such claim. Id.

Helton v. Hawkins

12 F. Supp. 2d 1276 · District Court, M.D. Alabama · Jul 15, 1998

As established by the Supreme Court in Harlow , the test for “good faith” or qualified immunity • turns primarily on the objective reasonableness of the officials’ conduct in light of established law: “governmental officials … Where the law that the defendants allegedly violated was not clearly established at the time of the alleged offense, the defendants are entitled to qualified immunity. Id. at 807 , 102 S.Ct. at 2732 ; Stewart v.

Wesley v. Rigney

913 F. Supp. 2d 313 · District Court, E.D. Kentucky · Dec 18, 2012

Defendant is also entitled to qualified immunity because her actions were ob *324 jectively reasonable in light of clearly established law. … However, the Court also recognized that this rule was not clearly established after Hartman and, therefore, the officer-petitioner was entitled to qualified immunity.

Santos v. Zabbara

984 F. Supp. 2d 106 · District Court, E.D. New York · Oct 28, 2013

Qualified Immunity Qualified immunity shields Defendants, as “government officials performing discretionary functions,” from liability for damages under Section 1983 “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established … “An officer conducting a search is entitled to qualified immunity where clearly established law does not show that the search violated the Fourth Amendment.” Pearson, 555 U.S. at 243-44 , 129 S.Ct. 808 .

Peppers v. Coates

694 F. Supp. 1562 · District Court, N.D. Georgia · Jun 30, 1988

If plaintiff’s allegations prove true, then Cozart has violated clearly established constitutional rights and he is not entitled to qualified immunity. … Therefore, Ewing is not entitled to qualified immunity.

Macareno v. Thomas

378 F. Supp. 3d 933 · District Court, W.D. Washington · May 8, 2019

Government officials enjoy qualified immunity from civil damages unless their conduct violates "clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known." Harlow v. … Because Plaintiff's Fourth Amendment right was clearly established, the Court DENIES Defendant Officers' motion for qualified immunity. iii.

Knussman v. State of Md.

16 F. Supp. 2d 601 · District Court, D. Maryland · Aug 13, 1998

To determine whether qualified immunity shields a public official courts should: “(1) identify the right allegedly violated, (2) decide whether that right was clearly established at the time of the alleged violation, and … Under these circumstances, the law can hardly be deemed “clearly established” and, accordingly, qualified immunity is available to all of the individual defendants. 5 Moreover, contrary to plaintiffs as *611 sertion that

Massaro v. Town of Trumbull

525 F. Supp. 2d 302 · District Court, D. Connecticut · Dec 13, 2007

Qualified immunity shields police officers acting in their official capacity from suits for damages ... unless their actions *307 violate clearly-established rights of which an objectively reasonable official would have known … The defendants are therefore entitled to qualified immunity.

McGrath v. Scott

250 F. Supp. 2d 1218 · District Court, D. Arizona · Mar 12, 2003

In Harlow , the Supreme Court established the test for qualified immunity as whether the official violated “clearly established [federal] statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” … Here, State Defendants asserted the affirmative defense of qualified immunity. Therefore, the burden of persuasion shifted to Plaintiff to establish a violation of a clearly established federal right.

Kane ex rel. K.J. v. Chester County Department of Children, Youth & Families

10 F. Supp. 3d 671 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 31, 2014

The CYF Motion to Dismiss next argues that the discretionary conduct of the CYF defendants is protected by the doctrine of qualified immunity because plaintiff has not pleaded a right that was so clearly established that … clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.’ ” James v.

Drevdahl v. City of Fairfield

District Court, E.D. California · Feb 2, 2022

“Qualified immunity protects 7 government officials from civil damages ‘insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly 8 established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known. … Ct. 2042, 2044 (2015) (“Qualified 11 immunity shields government officials from civil damages liability unless the official violated a 12 statutory or constitutional right that was clearly established at the time of the