Case law

Howard Ex Rel. Estate of Howard v. Bayes

378 F. Supp. 2d 753 · District Court, E.D. Kentucky · Jan 5, 2005

Violation of Clearly Established Constitutional Right Determining whether a government official was performing a discretionary act, however, does not end the qualified immunity analysis. … Therefore, Bayes is entitled to qualified immunity for his actions as there is no evidence that he violated a clearly established federal right. B.

Bozeman v. Orum

199 F. Supp. 2d 1216 · District Court, M.D. Alabama · Apr 12, 2002

To resolve the qualified-immunity question, therefore, a determination as to whether this incident implicates a clearly established constitutional right must be made. … Without clearly established law to guide the officer’s actions, qualified immunity applies. Summary judgment is due on the fourth-amendment excessive-force claim against the officers. 3.

Haddad v. Fromson

154 F. Supp. 2d 1085 · District Court, W.D. Michigan · May 2, 2001

The only issue for this Court is whether Fromson violated clearly established federal rights guaranteed by the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment. 1. … Even if this Court were to find some arguable equal protection or due process violation, Fromson would nevertheless be entitled to qualified immunity unless Plaintiff could show that his rights were “clearly established”

Lilly v. Lewiston-Porter Central School District

853 F. Supp. 2d 346 · District Court, W.D. New York · Dec 20, 2011

qualified immunity did not apply. … Then we consider if the violated right was clearly established at the time of the conduct....

Rodriguez-Cortes v. Superintendencia del Capitolio

236 F. Supp. 3d 498 · District Court, D. Puerto Rico · Feb 17, 2017

(2), if so, whether that right was clearly established at the time of defendant’s violation.” … Defendants fail to satisfy either part of the qualified immunity test. Accordingly, the Court finds that the defense of qualified immunity does not apply to defendant Vazquez.

Bah v. City of N.Y.

319 F. Supp. 3d 698 · District Court, S.D. Illinois · May 21, 2018

Nevertheless, he is entitled to qualified immunity if his conduct did not violate clearly established law. … On qualified immunity, the officer's actions are assessed in view of the clearly established law at the time the officer acted. Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223 , 244, 129 S.Ct. 808 , 172 L.Ed.2d 565 (2009).

Holloway v. Lamar County

180 F. Supp. 3d 467 · District Court, S.D. Mississippi · Apr 8, 2016

“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 person … Therefore, because a reasonable officer would have known that tasing Plaintiff was objectively unreasonable under clearly established law, the Court does not find that Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity and will

Tanner v. San Juan County Sheriff's Office

864 F. Supp. 2d 1090 · District Court, D. New Mexico · Mar 21, 2012

Clearly Established Rights in the Qualified Immunity Analysis. … Qualified immunity shifts the burden to the plaintiff to establish that the officer violated clearly established law.

Gyadu v. Frankl

62 F. Supp. 2d 590 · District Court, D. Connecticut · Jul 23, 1999

Individuals are qualifiedly immune insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known. Id. at 818 , 102 S.Ct. 2727 . … Thus, as to those remedies, the defendants enjoy qualified immunity. The motions to dismiss will be granted, on grounds of qualified immunity, as to the allegations of violations of 42 U.S.C.

Estate of Holmes v. Somers

387 F. Supp. 3d 1233 · District Court, D. Kansas · Apr 17, 2019

Qualified immunity "shields public officials ... from damages actions unless their conduct was unreasonable in light of clearly established law." Gann v. … When the defense of qualified immunity is asserted, a plaintiff must show: "(1) that the defendant's actions violated a federal constitutional or statutory right, and, if so, (2) that the right was clearly established at

Fera v. City of Albany

568 F. Supp. 2d 248 · District Court, N.D. New York · Jul 30, 2008

“Qualified immunity is an affirmative defense that shields government officials from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a … violated were not clearly established.”

Scott v. Palmer

210 F. Supp. 3d 1303 · District Court, N.D. Alabama · Sep 27, 2016

was clearly established at the time of the alleged violation. … Regarding the second prong of the qualified immunity analysis, it is clearly established in the Eleventh Circuit that “gratuitous use of force when a criminal suspect is not resisting arrest constitutes excessive force.

Brawley v. Punt

186 F. Supp. 3d 1102 · District Court, D. Montana · May 11, 2016

On the other hand, because the law may not be clearly established, Officer Punt could be entitled to qualified immunity as a mat *1109 ter of law. The constitutional question is addressed first below. See Plumhoff v. … to qualified immunity.

Dunklin v. Lowndes County

894 F. Supp. 1527 · District Court, M.D. Alabama · Jun 30, 1995

“clearly established”). … In plain terms, Hulett is entitled to qualified immunity if the Plaintiffs fail to produce sufficient evidence that, when viewed in the light most favorable to them, Hulett violated their clearly established Fourteenth Amendment

Hunt v. Green

376 F. Supp. 2d 1043 · District Court, D. New Mexico · Mar 30, 2005

“When the defendants are public officials asserting a qualified immunity defense and the appealed issue is whether a given set of facts establishes that defendants violated clearly established law,”, the order denying summary … Even assuming a constitutional violation occurred, however, the Defendants are nonetheless entitled to qualified immunity because the law is not clearly established in this area.

Broussard v. Lafayette City-Parish Consolidated Government

45 F. Supp. 3d 553 · District Court, W.D. Louisiana · Sep 5, 2014

The defendants’ motions for sanctions and the alternative motions for summary judgment on qualified immunity are DEFERRED. REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION PATRICK J. HANNA, United States Magistrate Judge. … The Punitive Damages Claims It has been thirty-three years since the Supreme Court clearly stated: “we hold that a municipality is immune from punitive damages under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 .” City of Newport v.

Harrell v. City of New York

161 F. Supp. 3d 180 · District Court, E.D. New York · Apr 21, 2016

Qualified immunity shields prosecutors “from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” … ’s actions were objectively unreasonable in light of clearly established law.”

CLIFT BY CLIFT v. Fincannon

657 F. Supp. 1535 · District Court, E.D. Texas · Apr 13, 1987

The resolution, then, of the qualified immunity defenses raised by these individually named Defendants turns initially on whether the law was clearly established at the time the action in question occurred. 13 *1545 Thus, … There being no clearly established federal right to habilitation in the least restrictive alternative setting, the individual Defendants’ claims of qualified immunity must prevail in that regard.

Adam Cmty. Ctr. v. City of Troy

381 F. Supp. 3d 887 · District Court, E.D. Michigan · Apr 3, 2019

In contrast, legislative officials performing traditionally executive or administrative discretionary functions are entitled to only qualified immunity if they can establish that their actions were within the scope of their … Qualified immunity for Individual Defendants Defendants argue that the zoning board members are entitled to qualified immunity in connection with Plaintiff's claims.

Edwards v. Cabrera

861 F. Supp. 664 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Aug 10, 1994

Qualified Immunity Qualified immunity will shield the officers from liability to the extent their conduct did not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known … The Seventh Circuit has described the qualified immunity inquiry as having two prongs: First, the plaintiff must show that the law was clearly established when the challenged' conduct occurred.