Case law

Lazoda v. Maggy

900 F. Supp. 596 · District Court, N.D. New York · Oct 2, 1995

Qualified Immunity Principles Defendants have steadfastly asserted from the outset of the instant case that they enjoy qualified immunity from suit. … were then clearly established.” van Emrik v.

Bamont v. Pennsylvania Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals

163 F. Supp. 3d 138 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Feb 16, 2016

analyzing qualified immunity under Saucier v. … established.” 50 Based on our analysis, Defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity for Bamont’s claims in Counts I & II. ii.

Garvey v. MacDonald

665 F. Supp. 2d 47 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Oct 22, 2009

To summarize, courts in strip-search cases follow the familiar three-part qualified immunity inquiry: (1) have the plaintiffs alleged a deprivation of an actual constitutional right; (2) was the right clearly established … Accordingly, the measuring date of August 4, 2008, is firmly established for qualified immunity purposes here.

Muzychka v. Tyler

563 F. Supp. 1061 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Apr 18, 1983

Judith Tyler, a Special Agent of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (“FBI”) has moved for summary judgment claiming she is immune from liability on the grounds of qualified immunity. … Clearly, an FBI agent’s decision whether to stop and search a suspect is a discretionary function entitling the agent to the defense of qualified immunity. See, e.g., Druckenmiller v.

MacLean v. Secor

876 F. Supp. 695 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Feb 14, 1995

established at the time of his confinement, defendants are entitled to qualified immunity. … Defendants, however, are entitled to qualified immunity on this claim because, at the time plaintiff was detained, this liberty interest was not a “clearly established” right.

Landy v. Irizarry

884 F. Supp. 788 · District Court, S.D. New York · Apr 5, 1995

To be entitled to qualified immunity, a police officer must establish facts satisfying one of two tests: “either that his conduct did not violate ‘clearly established rights’ of which a reasonable person would have known, … , do not violate clearly established rights of which they should have known.

Bradway v. Town of Southampton

826 F. Supp. 2d 458 · District Court, E.D. New York · Dec 1, 2011

Qualified Immunity The individual defendants argue, in the alternative, that they are entitled to summary judgment on qualified immunity grounds with respect to the medical indifference claim under the Fourteenth Amendment … Tollaksen, 257 Fed.Appx. 400, 401 (2d Cir.2007) (explaining that government officers “are protected by qualified immunity if their actions do not violate clearly established law, or it was objectively reasonable for them

Becerra v. Unified Government of Wyandotte County/Kansas City

272 F. Supp. 2d 1223 · District Court, D. Kansas · Jul 25, 2003

immunity’ Defendant Mots argues that he is entitled to qualified immunity because his conduct violated no clearly established right of Plaintiffs. … Qualified immunity shields an individual government official performing discretionary functions from liability for civil damages insofar as his conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights

Figueroa v. Gates

207 F. Supp. 2d 1085 · District Court, C.D. California · Jun 11, 2002

basis of qualified immunity. … On the second prong of the qualified immunity analysis, “whether the right was clearly established,” Katz, 533 U.S. at 201, 121 S.Ct. 2151 , the Court asks whether “ ‘the contours of the right [were] sufficiently clear that

Maldonado v. Rodriguez

322 F. Supp. 3d 753 · District Court, S.D. Texas · May 15, 2017

immunity. … Qualified Immunity from Individual Capacity Claims a.

Bryant v. Rudman

933 F. Supp. 270 · District Court, S.D. New York · Jun 24, 1996

Qualified immunity bars civil damages suits against government officials acting in the performance of their official discretionary functions “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … Nevertheless, “even where the plaintiffs federal rights and the scope of the official’s permissible conduct are clearly established, the qualified immunity defense protects a government actor if it was ‘objectively reasonable

Raspberry v. Johnson

88 F. Supp. 2d 1319 · District Court, M.D. Alabama · Feb 18, 2000

Qualified immunity shields government officials performing discretionary functions from civil litigation and liability where “their conduct does not violate clearly established ... constitutional rights of which a reasonable … allegedly violated right was clearly established when the allegedly wrongful acts occurred.”

Moran v. City of New Rochelle

346 F. Supp. 2d 507 · District Court, S.D. New York · Nov 16, 2004

In accordance with the doctrine of qualified .immunity, government officials are shielded from liability flowing from their performance of discretionary functions as long as “their conduct does not violate clearly established … Qualified Immunity for Robert Bongiorni and Karl Cacciola Government officials performing discretionary functions generally are granted qualified immunity insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory

Fordyce v. City of Seattle

840 F. Supp. 784 · District Court, W.D. Washington · Jul 29, 1993

Qualified immunity is “an immunity from suit rather than a mere defense to liability” and “ordinarily should be decided by the court long before trial.” Hunter v. … The Ninth Circuit has recently held: When a law enforcement officer asserts qualified immunity from liability for Fourth Amendment violations, the district court must determine whether, in light of clearly established principles

Nichols v. Bourbon County Sheriff's Dept.

26 F. Supp. 3d 634 · District Court, E.D. Kentucky · Jun 12, 2014

a clearly established constitutional right. … Sheriff Matthews is entitled to qualified immunity in his individual capacity. D.

Min Li v. Qi Jiang

38 F. Supp. 3d 870 · District Court, N.D. Ohio · Aug 13, 2014

Defendants assert that Li has failed to show that the right in question was “clearly established” as required to defeat a qualified immunity defense. ECF No. 4 at 12. … The qualified immunity defense “shields governmental officials performing discretionary functions [ ] insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable

Pennycuff v. McNutt

95 F. Supp. 3d 1325 · District Court, W.D. Oklahoma · Mar 5, 2015

Qualified Immunity Defendants assert that plaintiffs 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claim should be dismissed because they are entitled to qualified immunity. … “When a defendant pleads qualified immunity, the plaintiff has the heavy burden of establishing: (1) that the defendant’s actions violated a federal constitutional or statutory right; and (2) that the right violated was clearly

Moray v. City of Yonkers

924 F. Supp. 8 · District Court, S.D. New York · Apr 17, 1996

Qualified Immunity The doctrine of qualified immunity shields government officials performing discretionary functions from liability for civil damages in eases under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 if their conduct does not violate clearly … Even when the plaintiffs federal rights are clearly established, qualified immunity may still bar a plaintiffs suit if it was objectively reasonable for the public official to believe that his acts did not violate the rights

Vinson v. Clarke County, Ala.

10 F. Supp. 2d 1282 · District Court, S.D. Alabama · Jun 17, 1998

or qualified immunity. … Furthermore, in assessing qualified immunity in this case, the court notes that the “[l]aw is clearly established by holdings, not by inferences from language in opinions.” Belcher, 30 F.3d at 1400 .

Alvarado v. City of New York

482 F. Supp. 2d 341 · District Court, S.D. New York · Apr 26, 2007

QUALIFIED IMMUNITY AND ALVARADO’S UNLAWFUL SEARCH CLAIM Alvarado argues that the Court should not have dismissed his unlawful search claim on qualified immunity grounds as a material factual dispute remained regarding the … Only Supreme Court and Second Circuit precedent existing at the time of the alleged violation is relevant in deciding whether a right is clearly established.”).