Case law

Jackson v. City of Pittsburgh

688 F. Supp. 2d 379 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Feb 22, 2010

Toledo, 446 U.S. 635 , 100 S.Ct. 1920 , 64 L.Ed.2d 572 (1980)). “ ‘The qualified immunity defense shields government agents from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory … his or her actions violated clearly established law.”

BALLARD v. DAVIS

District Court, M.D. Georgia · Sep 19, 2025

Vickers, 929 F.3d 1304, 1316 (11th Cir. 2019) (“[T]he qualified immunity analysis requires a clearly established right to be defined with specificity.”). … Ballard’s lawyers have made no effort to carry Ballard’s burden of showing clearly established law, and the defendants are entitled to qualified immunity.

Alcala v. Ortega

District Court, D. New Mexico · Jan 5, 2024

A court has the discretion to decide “which of the two prongs of the qualified immunity analysis should be addressed first”—as either issue is dispositive on the issue of qualified immunity. Pearson v. … The Court granted summary judgment on the basis of qualified immunity because it found there was no constitutional violation and the Plaintiff failed to show a violation of clearly established law (Doc. 66 at 17–18).

Jarett

District Court, D. Kansas · Feb 20, 2026

A defendant may assert qualified immunity and the plaintiff then bears the burden of showing (1) that the defendant’s actions violated a constitutional right, and (2) that the right was clearly established at the time of … He has the burden on qualified immunity, and he has not met it.

Ramirez v. Coughlin

919 F. Supp. 617 · District Court, N.D. New York · Mar 28, 1996

Qualified immunity “shields state officials from liability where they did not violate ‘clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.’ ” Wright v. … “Even if established, therefore, qualified immunity is not grounds for dismissing all of [plaintiffs] claims.” Id.

Fitzpatrick v. McKnight

District Court, S.D. West Virginia · Jul 3, 2025

which could be characterized as fraudulent, malicious, or oppressive,” (ECF No. 15 at 7), but evidently forgot that he is not entitled to qualified immunity if his act was “in violation of clearly established statutory … If the plaintiff demonstrates the violation of a clearly established right or law, the employee is not immune from liability. Jd. at 767.

Bruns v. Halford

913 F. Supp. 1295 · District Court, N.D. Iowa · Jan 23, 1996

Bruns violated no clearly *1298 established constitutional rights, and therefore defendants are entitled to qualified immunity. Mr. … Bruns has stated a due process claim under governing law, are defendants entitled to qualified immunity from that claim, because their conduct did not violate clearly established constitutional principles?

Martin v. Department of Children and Family Services

District Court, E.D. Louisiana · Nov 13, 2020

immunity and that Plaintiffs have failed to overcome qualified immunity by establishing a violation of a clearly established constitutional right.36 Defendants claim that heightened pleading is needed in qualified immunity … immunity.”120 To overcome the claim of qualified immunity, Plaintiffs must demonstrate that Defendants violated a statutory or constitutional right and that the right was clearly established at the time of

STOKES v. CITY OF PHILADELPHIA

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Oct 31, 2022

Rickard, 572 U.S. 765, 778 (2014) (“An official sued under § 1983 is entitled to qualified immunity unless it is shown that the official violated a statutory or constitutional right that was ‘clearly established’ … Therefore, the qualified immunity analysis involves determining whether the defendant violated a right that was “clearly established” at the time of the challenged conduct. Plumhoff, 572 U.S. at 778.

Farrow v. Weatherford City of

District Court, W.D. Oklahoma · Sep 26, 2025

The Individual Defendants argue, in part, that Plaintiff’s § 1983 claim is barred by qualified immunity because Plaintiff cannot show he had a “clearly established” constitutional right that they violated.5 They … plaintiffs “failed to identify clearly-established law” as required under the second qualified immunity prong). IV.

K.O. v. Sessions, III

District Court, District of Columbia · Jun 23, 2020

On the “clearly established” prong, “[t]he dispositive question is ‘whether the violative nature of particular conduct is clearly established.’’’ Abassi, 137 S. Ct. at 1866 (quoting Mullenix v. … conduct is clearly established.

(PS) Ward v. Upshaw

District Court, E.D. California · Apr 4, 2025

However, this court need not decide that 3 question because it is apparent that the officer defendants are entitled to qualified immunity. 4 There was, at the time of plaintiff’s detention, no “clearly established” First … Luna, 577 U.S. 7, 13 7 (2015) (a right is not clearly established for qualified immunity purposes unless existing 8 precedent “squarely governs” the specific facts at issue).

Cayenne v. Tobyhanna Township, PA

District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Aug 5, 2024

to qualified immunity. … the right was clearly established.

Jones v. Collin College

District Court, E.D. Texas · Aug 25, 2022

The doctrine of qualified immunity protects government officials from suit “unless their conduct violates a clearly established constitutional right.” DePree v. … ” of qualified immunity); Zuniga v.

Prokop v. Hileman

District Court, N.D. Illinois · Mar 2, 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 … Luna, 577 U.S. 7, 12 (2015) (“The dispositive question” for qualified immunity is “whether the violative nature of particular conduct is clearly established.”)

Munden v. Pineda

District Court, D. Colorado · Nov 8, 2024

The “record must clearly demonstrate the plaintiff has satisfied his heavy two-part burden; otherwise, the defendants are entitled to qualified immunity.” Felders ex rel. Smedley v. … The Court therefore finds that Officer Pineda is entitled to qualified immunity for Mr.

CROSLAND v. CITY OF PHILADELPHIA

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jun 8, 2023

That leaves the second prong of the qualified immunity analysis: whether the officers’ conduct violated clearly established law. … its caselaw suggests that municipal liability should remain untethered to the “clearly established” qualified immunity standard.

Samedi v. Miami-Dade County

134 F. Supp. 2d 1320 · District Court, S.D. Florida · Jan 26, 2001

White’s qualified immunity insulates him from suit. … was clearly established at the time of the alleged violation.

Brooks v. Taylor County

District Court, N.D. Texas · Oct 21, 2020

Catre, 77 F.3d 116, 120 (5th Cir. 1996) (“Public officials are entitled to qualified immunity from suit under § 1983 unless it is shown by specific allegations that the officials violated clearly established law.”). … Should Brooks elect to file an amended complaint and Rule 7(a) reply that is “tailored” to the officers’ assertions of qualified immunity, such filings are due no later than 020), published decisions can clearly establish

Cuvo v. Pocono Mountain School District

District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 21, 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 … A qualified immunity determination involves a two-pronged inquiry: (1) whether a constitutional or federal right has been violated; and (2) whether that right was “clearly established.” Saucier v.