Case law

Amaro v. New Mexico Corrections Department

District Court, D. New Mexico · Mar 16, 2022

“The doctrine 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 … Once a defendant has asserted a qualified immunity defense, the burden shifts to the plaintiff to establish that: (1) the defendant violated a constitutional right; and (2) the right was “clearly established” at the time

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

Pozdol v. City of Miami

996 F. Supp. 2d 1290 · District Court, S.D. Florida · Jan 29, 2014

To defeat a claim to qualified immunity, a plaintiff must demonstrate: “(1) that the official violated a statutory or constitutional right, and (2) that the right was ‘clearly established’ at the time of the challenged conduct … To establish a defense of qualified immunity a Defendant must show, as a preliminary matter, that the challenged conduct forms a discretionary duty of his office. See infra discussion of qualified immunity in Part.

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

Quintana v. City and County of Denver

District Court, D. Colorado · Jan 22, 2021

Because Plaintiff has not demonstrated that the Defendants Perez and Alexander violated a clearly established right by detaining Plaintiff, she has not met her burden to overcome the defense of qualified immunity. … Because Plaintiff has not demonstrated that the Individual Defendants violated a clearly established right, Plaintiff has not met her burden to overcome the defense of qualified immunity.

Johnson v. Wright

234 F. Supp. 2d 352 · District Court, S.D. New York · Dec 6, 2002

Violation of Clearly Established Law The Supreme Court recently addressed the issue of what constitutes “clearly established law” for purposes of the qualified immunity defense. See Hope v. … Objective Reasonableness of Officers’ Actions It is not sufficient for the qualified immunity analysis to determine that the right violated was clearly established at the time of its violation.

Winnie v. Clarke

893 F. Supp. 875 · District Court, D. Nebraska · Jul 11, 1995

Qualified Immunity Prison officials are entitled to qualified immunity from suit unless (1) the officials’ conduct violates a clearly established statutory or constitutional right; (2) the officials knew or should have known … Furthermore, I found that the plaintiff had a clearly established right to call witnesses at his disciplinary hearing and that the defendants’ refusal to do so was not protected under the doctrine of qualified immunity.

Breuder v. Board of Trustees

238 F. Supp. 3d 1054 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Mar 3, 2017

Defeating qualified immunity requires (1) conduct violating the plaintiffs constitutional or statutory rights that is (2) clearly established at the time of the violation such that a “reasonable official would understand … Here, the Individual Defendants claim that, even if there was a violation, it was not clearly established.

Birkeland v. Jorgenson

District Court, D. Minnesota · May 1, 2019

However, the Court must also consider the second prong of the qualified immunity analysis, whether the right was “clearly established.” … Therefore, the alleged right at issue is not clearly established, and the officers are entitled to qualified immunity on this claim. 2.

Glass v. Abbo

284 F. Supp. 2d 700 · District Court, E.D. Michigan · Sep 3, 2003

. § 1983 for money damages, qualified immunity protects a public official from being sued as long as the official ‘does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would … The principles of qualified immunity that we reaffirm today require that Anderson be permitted to argue that he is entitled to summary judgment on the ground-that, in light of the clearly established principles governing

Brooks v. Berg

270 F. Supp. 2d 302 · District Court, N.D. New York · Jul 15, 2003

Qualified Immunity “Qualified immunity shields public officials from liability for civil damages if their actions were objectively reasonable, as evaluated in the context of legal rules that were ‘clearly established’ at … Accordingly, the Court turns to the second step of the qualified immunity inquiry: whether this right was clearly established at the time of the alleged violation.

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

Rasic v. City of Northlake

563 F. Supp. 2d 885 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Jun 27, 2008

The two-part standard for qualified immunity asks whether the constitutional right allegedly violated was clearly established at the time of the alleged violation; it does not ask whether it was clearly established that the … The purpose of qualified immunity is to give public officials freedom to act — but, only so long as their actions do not violate a clearly established right.

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.

Volpi v. Center Moriches Union Free School District

9 F. Supp. 3d 255 · District Court, E.D. New York · Mar 24, 2014

Qualified immunity protects an official from civil liability if their conduct does not “violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Taravella v. … When evaluating whether qualified immunity applies, the court must engage in a two-part inquiry: 1) whether the constitutional right has been violated; and 2) whether that right was clearly established at the time of the

A.M. ex rel. Youngers v. New Mexico Department of Health

148 F. Supp. 3d 1232 · District Court, D. New Mexico · Dec 7, 2015

Clearly Established Rights in the Qualified Immunity Analysis. … with the prior case law and granted qualified immunity for lack of clearly established law.

Doe v. Southeast Delco School District

140 F. Supp. 3d 396 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Oct 13, 2015

Qualified immunity shields government employees sued in their personal capacities from liability unless their conduct violates “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights ... which a reasonable person would have … Qualified immunity will protect Assistant Superintendent Ryan if Plaintiffs *404 have failed to allege he violated their constitutional rights or if Plaintiffs have alleged a violation of a right that was not clearly established

Judge v. Shikellamy School District

135 F. Supp. 3d 284 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Sep 28, 2015

In determining whether a constitutional right was clearly established, a broad and generalized, declaration that a clearly established federal right was violated is insufficient. See Anderson v. … Put another way, for the purposes of the qualified immunity analysis, a right is considered clearly established if “it would be clear to a reasonable officer, that his conduct was unlawful in the situation he confronted.”

Dunn v. City of Boynton Beach

192 F. Supp. 3d 1310 · District Court, S.D. Florida · Jun 14, 2016

A public official performing a discretionary function enjoys qualified immunity in a civil action for damages if his or her conduct “does not violate clearly established federal statutory or constitutional rights of which … Qualified immunity may be raised in a motion to dismiss. Skrtich v.

Doyle v. Coombe

976 F. Supp. 183 · District Court, W.D. New York · Aug 26, 1997

Qualified Immunity Defendants have not raised qualified immunity as a basis for summary judgment. … “‘To defeat an official’s claim of qualified immunity, the individual’s right must have been clearly established at the time of the alleged violation.’ ” LaBounty, 1996 WL 711497 at *1 (citations omitted).