Case law

McKenzie v. Thompson

240 F. Supp. 3d 1304 · District Court, N.D. Georgia · Feb 22, 2017

In this case, Defendant asserts that he is entitled to qualified immunity. … Generally, government officials have qualified immunity “from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would

Williams v. City of Montgomery

21 F. Supp. 2d 1360 · District Court, M.D. Alabama · Oct 16, 1998

However, the necessity for detailed pleadings is especially apparent in cases involving qualified immunity, where the court must determine whether an individual defendant’s actions violated a clearly established right. … Murphy is entitled to qualified immunity at the motion to dismiss stage if Plaintiffs complaint fails to allege a violation of a clearly established constitutional right. Santamorena v.

Nigro v. Carrasquillo

152 F. Supp. 3d 1364 · District Court, S.D. Florida · Dec 17, 2015

Accordingly, Officer Carrasquillo is entitled to qualified immunity. … Qualified immunity protects government officials so long as “their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Wood v.

Meyer v. NILES TP., ILL.

477 F. Supp. 357 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Jul 24, 1979

Dunne Is Not Protected by the Doctrine of Qualified Immunity. … To rebut the qualified immunity defense, the plaintiff must demonstrate that the constitutional right infringed was clearly established at the time of the action and the official “knew or reasonably should have known that

Waste Conversion, Inc. v. Sims

868 F. Supp. 643 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Nov 15, 1994

The court also found that the right to a prompt post-deprivation right was “clearly established,” and thus defendants were not entitled to qualified immunity. (Id. at 7). … Finally, even if defendants did violate plaintiffs’ due process rights, these rights were not “clearly established,” and thus defendants are not liable under the doctrine of qualified immunity.

Burge v. Ferguson

619 F. Supp. 2d 1225 · District Court, M.D. Florida · Dec 16, 2008

established Fourth Amendment right. 12 Accordingly, qualified immunity is unavailable at this stage. … But see Thomas, 463 F.3d at 293-94 (concluding that “a plaintiff has no obligation to plead a violation of clearly established law in order to avoid dismissal on qualified immunity grounds.”). 8 ."

Doe v. Methacton School District

880 F. Supp. 380 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 16, 1995

QUALIFIED IMMUNITY The individual Methacton Defendants assert that they are entitled to qualified immunity for all constitutional claims against them. The burden to show immunity is on the defendant. … The test for whether qualified immunity should be applied is whether: (1) government officials (2) performed discretionary functions (3) that did not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights (4) of which

Farrelly v. City of Concord

902 F. Supp. 2d 178 · District Court, D. New Hampshire · Oct 2, 2012

Carroll are not entitled to qualified immunity because the unconstitutionality of RSA 644:4, 1(f) was clearly established by the New Hampshire Supreme Court’s decision in Pierce . … Even so, the officers are entitled to qualified immunity because Farrelly’s right to send the e-mails in question was not clearly established at the time of his arrest.

Walter v. Pike County, Pennsylvania

465 F. Supp. 2d 409 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Nov 29, 2006

If 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. … See, e.g., Smith, 318 F.3d at 510 (finding that the state-created danger doctrine was clearly established by the year 1999).

Spruytte v. Hoffner

197 F. Supp. 2d 931 · District Court, W.D. Michigan · Mar 30, 2001

The Sixth Circuit determined that the defendants were entitled to qualified immunity because the law concerning a prisoner’s retaliation claim was not “clearly established” for purposes of the qualified immunity defense prior … because the law was not clearly established.

Clouser v. City of Thornton

676 F. Supp. 228 · District Court, D. Colorado · Dec 31, 1987

Under the doctrine of qualified immunity, “government officials performing discretionary functions ... are shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory … When the affirmative defense of qualified immunity is raised, the plaintiff has the burden of convincing the court that his federal constitutional or statutory rights were clearly established at the time of the questioned

Cavanaugh v. Bartelt

178 F. Supp. 3d 819 · District Court, D. Nebraska · Apr 12, 2016

Qualified immunity shields public officials performing discretionary functions from liability for conduct that does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have … In determining whether an official is entitled to qualified immunity, the Court asks (1) whether the facts alleged establish a violation of a constitutional or statutory right and (2) whether that right *833 was clearly established

McClary v. Coughlin

87 F. Supp. 2d 205 · District Court, W.D. New York · Mar 14, 2000

Qualified Immunity: The defense of qualified immunity “shields government officials from liability for damages on account of their performance of discretionary functions ‘insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly … This Court does not believe the law of qualified immunity requires the wearing of such blinders. Precise “definitional specificity” has never been the determinant for “clearly established” legal rules.

Gorman v. Mississippi

258 F. Supp. 3d 761 · District Court, N.D. Mississippi · Jul 11, 2017

right was ‘clearly established’ at the time of the challenged conduct.”’” … immunity; the law was clearly established that “no reasonable officer could .have thought that this amount of force was legal under the circumstances,” even though there was no case directly on point.

Doe v. Aguilar

400 F. Supp. 2d 922 · District Court, W.D. Texas · Apr 4, 2005

As noted above, plaintiffs have the burden to show that qualified immunity is unavailable here and to do so plaintiffs must show that the right which they allege defendant violated was clearly established in December 2001 … City of Corinth, 135 F.3d 320 , 325 (5th Cir.1998): In reviewing a claim of qualified immunity, this Court must determine: ‘(1) whether the plaintiff has alleged a violation of a clearly established constitutional right;

Harris v. New York State Education Department

419 F. Supp. 2d 530 · District Court, S.D. New York · Mar 6, 2006

, as long as Congress’s intent to do so is expressed clearly and the state actually waives its immunity through an intentional relinquishment of a known right. … To establish a prima facie case of discrimination under § 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, Harris must show that (1) he has a disability for purposes of the Rehabilitation Act; (2) he is otherwise qualified for the benefit

Brenes-Laroche v. Toledo Davila

682 F. Supp. 2d 179 · District Court, D. Puerto Rico · Jan 26, 2010

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 … In conducting our qualified immunity analysis, we take the Plaintiffs facts as true for purposes of determining whether Defendants have violated his constitutional rights and whether the right at issue was clearly established

Carr v. Tatangelo

156 F. Supp. 2d 1369 · District Court, M.D. Georgia · Jul 31, 2001

If there was no underlying constitutional violation, then Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity, regardless of whether the law was clearly established. See Hartley v. … Defendants argue that they are entitled to qualified immunity on this claim because they were unaware that Carr had been shot and because Carr has not shown that their conduct violated clearly established law.

Murphy v. New York Racing Ass'n, Inc.

76 F. Supp. 2d 489 · District Court, S.D. New York · Dec 6, 1999

qualified immunity. … Clearly Established Law Having determined that qualified immunity is generally available to the Board Defendants, it remains to determine whether their assertion of it satisfies the requirements set forth by the Supreme Court

Arnold v. South Carolina Department of Corrections

843 F. Supp. 110 · District Court, D. South Carolina · Feb 3, 1994

Certainly, its applicability is not “clearly established,” which calls into play the qualified immunity of Defendants. … “Government officials who are sued for damages under § 1983 for their performance of discretionary functions are entitled to a qualified immunity defense if they prove that their conduct ‘does not violate clearly established