Case law

Rasul v. Rumsfeld

414 F. Supp. 2d 26 · District Court, District of Columbia · Feb 6, 2006

Qualified immunity “shield[s officials] 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.” … Any Constitutional Right was Not Clearly Established Assuming arguendo that the D.C.

Sutton v. Tompkins County

617 F. Supp. 2d 84 · District Court, N.D. New York · Sep 25, 2007

Under federal law, “[t]he defense of qualified immunity shields governmental officials from civil liability if the official’s conduct did not *98 violate constitutional rights that were clearly established at the pertinent … When qualified immunity is asserted in a motion for summary judgment, of course, the facts material to the claim of qualified immunity must not be genuinely disputed. See Cecere, 967 F.2d at 829 .

MONTEILH v. County of Los Angeles

820 F. Supp. 2d 1081 · District Court, C.D. California · Jul 12, 2011

Qualified Immunity Qualified immunity shields public officials sued in their individual capacity for monetary damages, unless their conduct violates “clearly established” law that a reasonable public officer would have known … “whether the right was clearly established.”

Amnesty International, USA v. Battle

484 F. Supp. 2d 1279 · District Court, S.D. Florida · Apr 24, 2007

Under the doctrine of qualified immunity, government officials performing discretionary functions are immune not just from liability, but from suit, unless the conduct which is the basis for suit violates “clearly established … The purported right Amnesty seeks to invoke in order to pierce Defendants’ qualified immunity here is not as clearly established as the rights invoked by the arrested protestors in Jones .

Matusick v. Erie County Water Authority

774 F. Supp. 2d 514 · District Court, W.D. New York · Mar 1, 2011

Defendants’ argument for qualified immunity as a matter of law was that the First Amendment right to intimate association was not clearly established for dating, as opposed to married, relationships when their alleged acts … Defendants’ argument for qualified immunity is the most difficult one to understand, because they never identified what they were doing that required qualified immunity for racial slurs.

Pullin v. City of Canton

133 F. Supp. 2d 1045 · District Court, N.D. Ohio · Mar 9, 2001

Harlow, 457 U.S. at 818 , 102 S.Ct. 2727 (holding that qualified immunity shields state actors only “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person … seizures is, as a general matter, clearly established.

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).

Norfleet v. ARK. DEPT. OF HUMAN SERVICES

796 F. Supp. 1194 · District Court, E.D. Arkansas · Jun 1, 1992

Qualified immunity from liability for civil damages exists where the defendants' actions do not violate "clearly established constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known." … The Court, however, does not need to decide this question because it finds that the law in this area is not clearly established and the defendants are entitled to qualified immunity.

Hendon v. City of Piedmont

163 F. Supp. 2d 1316 · District Court, N.D. Alabama · Sep 11, 2001

.-, 121 S.Ct. 2151 (2001), where the Supreme Court held that qualified immunity should be granted on the excessive force claim in that case because the plaintiff had not “identified any case demonstrating a clearly established … The panel found that the police officer was entitled to qualified immunity because it was not clearly established that the amount of force he used was unlawful.

Davis v. Billington

775 F. Supp. 2d 23 · District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 30, 2011

Qualified Immunity As noted previously in this Memorandum Opinion, the doctrine of qualified immunity protects government officials from liability for civil damages when their conduct does not violate clearly established … Therefore, because the plaintiff alleges in his Complaint the violation of a clearly established constitutional right, defendant Mulhollan’s motion to dismiss on qualified immunity grounds must be denied. 2.

Perez v. Duran

962 F. Supp. 2d 533 · District Court, S.D. New York · Jul 3, 2013

However, to find a right clearly established for purposes of qualified immunity “do[es] not require a case directly on point, but existing precedent must have placed the ... constitutional question beyond debate.” … If a right is clearly established, an officer will still be entitled to qualified immunity if the officer’s “actions were not objectively unreasonable at the time they were taken.” Lee v.

Gilbert v. Feld

788 F. Supp. 854 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 30, 1992

The defense of qualified immunity can support the grant of a Rule 12(b)(6) motion only when the complaint itself establishes the circumstances required for a finding of qualified immunity. Green v. … Plaintiff’s complaint does not set forth facts establishing qualified immunity. A qualified immunity defense can, therefore, not be used to defeat the claim on this 12(b)(6) motion.

Ross v. State of Ala.

893 F. Supp. 1545 · District Court, M.D. Alabama · Jul 7, 1995

Under the qualified immunity defense, the defendants are immune from liability if [the plaintiff’s] complaint fails to state a violation of a "clearly established statutory or constitutional right[] of which a reasonable … The purpose of qualified immunity is to shield government officials performing discretionary functions from civil trials and liability if their conduct does not violate " 'clearly established statutory or constitutional rights

Kastritis v. City of Daytona Beach Shores

835 F. Supp. 2d 1200 · District Court, M.D. Florida · May 18, 2011

Qualified immunity applies so long as the officer’s conduct “does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Grider v. … The officer is entitled to qualified immunity if the plaintiff fails to prove (a) that the officer violated the plaintiffs constitutional rights, and (b) that the right was clearly established.

Flynn v. Burns

289 F. Supp. 3d 948 · District Court, E.D. Wisconsin · Jan 29, 2018

do not violate clearly established constitutional or statutory rights. … Once a defendant asserts a qualified immunity defense, the plaintiff has the burden to establish that the defendant's action violated a clearly established right. Estate of Escobedo v.

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.

Pitchford v. Borough of Munhall

631 F. Supp. 2d 636 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Nov 13, 2007

In order for a federally protected right to be “clearly established” for the purpose of a qualified immunity inquiry, “[t]he contours of the right must be sufficiently clear that a reasonable official would understand that … Pitchford’s “asserted right” is clearly established.

Engel v. Buchan

778 F. Supp. 2d 846 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Mar 4, 2011

immunity test: whether a reasonable officer would have known that his actions were unconstitutional in light of clearly established law. … , because Engel has properly stated a claim for a violation of a constitutional right, and because that right was clearly established at the time of the asserted violation, Buchan is not entitled to qualified immunity against

Montgomery v. Conrad

District Court, M.D. Tennessee · Oct 20, 2022

When qualified immunity is raised in a motion to dismiss, the plaintiff’s allegations must “plausibly mak[e] out a claim that the defendant's conduct violated a constitutional right that was clearly established law at … established prong of the qualified immunity defense.

Arrington v. Dickerson

915 F. Supp. 1516 · District Court, M.D. Alabama · Jan 31, 1996

The court also reserved ruling on the qualified immunity issue. … Instead, the question in this case, as in all qualified immunity cases, is fact specific: in May 1991, was it clearly established in this circuit that it was unconstitutional for a mental institution to fail to supervise