Case law

Olivo Gonzalez v. Teacher's Retirement Board

208 F. Supp. 2d 163 · District Court, D. Puerto Rico · Jun 12, 2002

Plaintiffs counter by arguing that the doctrine of qualified immunity does not protect the Defendants from a violation of clearly established constitutional or statutory rights, and that the Court should not abstain pursuant … Qualified Immunity Defendants invoke the doctrine of qualified immunity in support of their motion to dismiss.

Reiver v. District of Columbia

925 F. Supp. 2d 1 · District Court, District of Columbia · Feb 22, 2013

Since the Court finds that the police conduct was objectively reasonable and did not violate plaintiff’s clearly established rights, the officers are protected by the doctrine of qualified immunity, and the motion will … “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

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.

Allah v. Brown

351 F. Supp. 2d 278 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Oct 26, 2004

Qualified Immunity Even if a plaintiff can establish a constitutional violation, under the doctrine of qualified immunity government officials will not be liable if “[tjheir conduct does not violate clearly established statutory … If the law is not established clearly when an official acts, he is entitled to qualified immunity because he “could not reasonably be expected to anticipate subsequent legal developments.”

Mata Ex Rel. J.A.M v. City of Farmington

791 F. Supp. 2d 1118 · District Court, D. New Mexico · Jun 13, 2011

Once the plaintiff has established the inference that the defendant’s conduct violated a clearly established constitutional right, a qualified immunity defense generally fails. See Cannon v. … They argue that Mata thus cannot satisfy his burden under the qualified immunity test and show that Rahn’s actions violated a clearly established constitutional right.

King's Grant Inn v. Gilford, et al.

2005 DNH 022 · District Court, D. New Hampshire · Feb 16, 2005

qualified immunity from liability for enforcing it. … Because the contours of the legal right defendants violated were not clearly established at the time they acted, the individual defendants are entitled to qualified immunity from personal liability, and they are entitled

Wilson v. Zellner

200 F. Supp. 2d 1356 · District Court, M.D. Florida · Mar 26, 2002

immunity because Plaintiff has failed to establish that the alleged constitutional right was clearly established at the time of Zellner’s actions. … Under this prong of the qualified immunity analysis the issue is whether it was clearly established at the time of Defendant Zellner’s actions that it was unlawful for a prison official to detain a prisoner for a period of

Fletcher v. United States Parole Commission

550 F. Supp. 2d 30 · District Court, District of Columbia · May 6, 2008

In conducting the qualified immunity analysis, the Court assumed that the facts alleged by Fletcher would establish a violation of the Ex Post Facto Clause, and focused its inquiry on whether, under “clearly established” … Finding that the law was not clearly established on this issue at the time his reparole was denied in 2000, the Court held that qualified immunity applied. Id.

Engleman v. Adkerson

District Court, N.D. Georgia · Mar 1, 2024

“Qualified immunity offers complete protection for government officials sued in their individual capacities if their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a … Plaintiff devotes no section to her failure-to-intervene claim but simply says Adkerson is not entitled to qualified immunity because it is clearly established that a person cannot be arrested without a

Boyer v. Mohring

994 F. Supp. 2d 649 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jan 10, 2014

‘clearly established’ at the time of the challenged conduct.” … was clearly established at the time of the challenged conduct.

Garcia v. Montford Unit

District Court, N.D. Texas · Dec 16, 2024

Motion on Qualified Immunity Defendant appeared in this case and asserted the affirmative defense of qualified immunity in her answer to the complaint. (Doc. 34). … .”’); see also Backe, 691 F.3d at 648 (explaining that “this court has established a careful procedure under which a district court may defer its qualified immunity ruling if further factual development is necessary to

Koiro v. Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department

69 F. Supp. 3d 1061 · District Court, D. Nevada · Nov 21, 2014

Second, Defendants argue that, even if Catanese violated the Fourth Amendment, he should still receive qualified immunity because Koiro did not carry his burden of showing that the right violated was clearly established. … “Qualified immunity protects government officials from civil damages ‘insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.’ ” Chappell

Kenney v. Hawaii

109 F. Supp. 2d 1271 · District Court, D. Hawaii · Jul 31, 2000

To determine whether a defendant is entitled to the defense of qualified immunity, a court must (1) identify the right allegedly violated; (2) determine whether the right was clearly established at the time of the violation … That right is clearly established. See Kelley, 60 F.3d at 667 .

Aviles v. Department of the Army

666 F. Supp. 2d 224 · District Court, D. Puerto Rico · Sep 8, 2009

Qualified immunity is applicable unless the official’s conduct violated a clearly established constitutional right. Anderson, 483 U.S. at 640 , 107 S.Ct. 3034 . … violated that clearly established constitutional right.”

Pierce v. Ohio Department of Rehabilitation & Corrections

284 F. Supp. 2d 811 · District Court, N.D. Ohio · Aug 28, 2003

Of course, the qualified immunity inquiry asks whether the constitutional right advocated by the plaintiff is clearly established, not whether a defendant’s conduct is not clearly established. … The test for whether a right is clearly established was set out by the Supreme Court: “[C]learly established rights, for purpose of qualified immunity, are ‘clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which

Robinson v. City of San Diego

954 F. Supp. 2d 1010 · District Court, S.D. California · May 28, 2013

clearly established at the time of the conduct at issue. … Specific binding precedent is not required to show that a right is clearly established for qualified immunity purposes.

Unzueta v. Steele

291 F. Supp. 2d 1230 · District Court, D. Kansas · Oct 29, 2003

If so, we must subsequently ask “whether the right was clearly established.” Id. If the plaintiff does not satisfy either portion of the two-pronged test, the Court must grant the defendant qualified immunity. Gross v. … City of Laramie, 239 F.3d 1183, 1189-90 (10th Cir.2001) (finding qualified immunity for officers who hog-tied an arrestee with diminished capacity because in 1996 there was not a clearly established right to be free from

Ziemba v. Armstrong

433 F. Supp. 2d 248 · District Court, D. Connecticut · May 17, 2006

QUALIFIED IMMUNITY The qualified immunity inquiry requires the court to ask, first, whether the defendant’s conduct violated a constitutional right. Saucier v. … Qualified Immunity Argument For the reasons stated in Part II, supra, the court finds that Mangiafico is not entitled to qualified immunity.

Snow v. City of El Paso, Texas

501 F. Supp. 2d 826 · District Court, W.D. Texas · Apr 4, 2006

Qualified immunity shields public officials from both civil damages and trial “if their actions were objectively reasonable in light of then clearly established law.” Bazan v. … The Court employs a two step process to resolve a qualified immunity defense. First, the Court must determine whether the plaintiff has alleged “the violation of a clearly established Constitutional *835 right.”

Elfers v. Varnau

101 F. Supp. 3d 753 · District Court, S.D. Ohio · Mar 31, 2015

Qualified immunity shields “government officials performing discretionary functions ... from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of … The court held that because this right was not “clearly established,” the coroner was entitled to qualified immunity from a Section 1983 claim brought after the wrong body was delivered to the family of the decedent.