Case law

Ciampi v. City of Palo Alto

790 F. Supp. 2d 1077 · District Court, N.D. California · May 11, 2011

Qualified Immunity Doctrine 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 … The immunity inquiry, on the other hand, asks whether the right Plaintiff claims was clearly established. Id.

Warren v. Coffee County Commission

942 F. Supp. 1412 · District Court, M.D. Alabama · Aug 9, 1995

Clearly Established Law The court now turns to the clearly established law prong of the qualified immunity test. … Qualified immunity is appropriate on the excessive force claim. B.

Moore v. Gunnison Valley Hospital

170 F. Supp. 2d 1080 · District Court, D. Colorado · Oct 22, 2001

When qualified immunity is raised in a Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6) motion, the plaintiff must carry the burden of establishing that the defendant violated clearly established law. … right was clearly established.”

Portera v. State of Ala. Dept. of Finance

322 F. Supp. 2d 1285 · District Court, M.D. Alabama · May 21, 2004

Where the law that the government employee allegedly violated was not clearly established at the time of the alleged offpnse, the employee is entitled to qualified immunity. Id. at 807 , 102 S.Ct. at 2732 . … Thus, the remaining issue under the qualified-immunity analysis is whether McClenney’s action violated clearly established law. 16 *1296 To determine whether McClenney’s action violated clearly established law, the court

Estate of Smith v. Michigan

256 F. Supp. 2d 704 · District Court, E.D. Michigan · Feb 7, 2003

Qualified Immunity Defendants contend that they are entitled to qualified immunity on all federal constitutional claims. … Furthermore, when a defendant asserts a qualified immunity bar in a motion to dismiss a section 1983 claim, the plaintiffs complaint must *713 establish the violation of a clearly established constitutional right.

Ospina v. Department of Corrections, State of Del.

749 F. Supp. 572 · District Court, D. Delaware · Oct 31, 1990

In reviewing a qualified immunity claim, the District Court must determine whether a reasonable officer could have believed the defendant’s actions were lawful in light of clearly established law and of the information the … The constitutional infirmity of such police conduct thus was “clearly established” at the time of the arrest in this case.

Lamb v. City of Decatur

947 F. Supp. 1261 · District Court, C.D. Illinois · Nov 19, 1996

“It is the plaintiff who bears the burden of establishing the existence of the allegedly clearly established constitutional right.” Rice v. Burks, 999 F.2d 1172, 1174 (7th Cir.1993). … The Decatur police do not qualify for immunity.

Coker on Behalf of Coker v. Henry

813 F. Supp. 567 · District Court, W.D. Michigan · Feb 18, 1993

The question of qualified immunity generally turns on the “objective legal reasonableness” of the official’s action, assessed in light of the legal rules that were “clearly established” at the time it was taken. … In asserting qualified immunity, defendants contend the asserted due process right was not clearly established at the time Craig Coker was abused.

Wynn v. City of Lakeland

727 F. Supp. 2d 1309 · District Court, M.D. Florida · Jul 20, 2010

“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 reasonable person … To receive qualified immunity protection, the government official must first establish that he was acting within his discretionary authority at the time of the alleged violation. Cottone v.

Gregg v. Ohio Department of Youth Services

661 F. Supp. 2d 842 · District Court, S.D. Ohio · Sep 22, 2009

Telb, 831 F.2d 673 (6th Cir.1987), when the defense of qualified immunity is raised, a plaintiff must include in the pleadings factual allegations necessary to support the conclusion that the defendants violated clearly established … Gregg’s constitutional rights, it is unnecessary to reach the “clearly established” prong of qualified immunity as to these defendants. See Bukowski v. City of Akron, 326 F.3d 702, 708 (6th Cir.2003).

Whitfield v. Municipality of Fajardo

279 F. Supp. 2d 115 · District Court, D. Puerto Rico · Aug 19, 2003

Government officials are generally immune from suit when their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory authority or constitutional rights, which a reasonable person should have known of at the time of the conduct … Second, these rights were clearly established at the time of the alleged violation.

O'CONNELL v. Gorski

715 F. Supp. 1201 · District Court, W.D. New York · Mar 14, 1989

immunity from liability for civil damages inasmuch as their decision to dismiss the plaintiff did not violate any of his “clearly established” rights. 4 Harlow v. … It merely supports the con- *1206 elusion that the law was in fact not clearly established at the time of his dismissal and that, therefore, Gorski and NeMoyer are entitled to qualified immunity from civil damages.

Ransom v. Baltimore County

111 F. Supp. 2d 704 · District Court, D. Maryland · Aug 11, 2000

In assessing a claim for qualified immunity, the Court must: (i) identify the right allegedly violated; (ii) determine whether the constitutional right violated was clearly established at the time of the incident; and (iii … Because she is clearly protected by qualified privilege, the Court will not address her argument.

Holley v. COUNTY OF ORANGE, NY

625 F. Supp. 2d 131 · District Court, S.D. New York · Jan 14, 2009

Qualified immunity shields government officials whose conduct “does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Harlow v. … 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

Hedrick v. Roberts

183 F. Supp. 2d 814 · District Court, E.D. Virginia · Sep 27, 2001

Qualified Immunity State actors, such as prison officials performing discretionary functions, enjoy qualified immunity if their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable … 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 the incident

Colman v. Vasquez

142 F. Supp. 2d 226 · District Court, D. Connecticut · Mar 30, 2001

Colman’s Complaint does not allege a violation of clearly established law, they are entitled to qualified immunity. … established” for qualified immunity purposes.

Scocca v. Smith

912 F. Supp. 2d 875 · District Court, N.D. California · Dec 17, 2012

This' is because, for qualified immunity, the Court must consider what the clearly established law was at the time of the sheriffs decision to deny Mr. Scocca’s application for a CCW license. … “Clearly established” for purposes of qualified immunity means that “the contours of the right must be sufficiently clear that a reasonable official' would understand that what he is doing violates that right.

Dingle v. District of Columbia

571 F. Supp. 2d 87 · District Court, District of Columbia · Aug 12, 2008

Qualified Immunity Defendants argue that they are entitled to qualified immunity with respect to both claims of false arrest. 5 Construing the facts in favor of plaintiffs deposition testimony, the Court finds the officers … Applying the two-part analysis to this action, it appears from this record that Officer Moore violated a clearly established right.

Torres ex rel. Estate of Torres v. Amato

22 F. Supp. 3d 166 · District Court, N.D. New York · May 16, 2014

Qualified immunity protects government officials from liability when “their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Harlow v. … Forsyth, 472 U.S. 511, 526 , 105 S.Ct. 2806 , 86 L.Ed.2d 411 (1985) (holding that qualified immunity is not merely immunity from damages but also “immunity from suit”).

Jones v. Pandey

390 F. Supp. 2d 1371 · District Court, M.D. Georgia · Jul 14, 2005

On the other hand, if a violation could be made out on a favorable view of the parties’ submissions, the next sequential step is to ask whether the right was “clearly established” because qualified immunity inquiries have … In the Eleventh Circuit, for a right to be “clearly established” for purposes of qualified immunity, “the law must have earlier been developed in such a concrete *1377 and factually defined context to make it obvious to all