Case law

Estrella v. Menifee

275 F. Supp. 2d 452 · District Court, S.D. New York · Jul 17, 2003

Qualified Immunity Assuming, arguendo, that plaintiff has adequately alleged a violation of his constitutional rights, defendants would still be dismissed from this lawsuit under the doctrine of qualified immunity. … Here, plaintiff fails the second and third prongs of the qualified immunity analysis.

Heap v. Carter

112 F. Supp. 3d 402 · District Court, E.D. Virginia · Jul 1, 2015

Qualified immunity is available where a govérnment official performing discretionary functions “does not violate clearly established statutory-or constitutional rights of which a- reasonable person would have known.” … and if other appellate federal courts have split on the question of whether an asserted right exists, the right cannot be clearly established for qualified immunity purposes.

Steele v. City of Bemidji

242 F. Supp. 2d 624 · District Court, D. Minnesota · Jan 2, 2003

This shield is known as qualified immunity. To determine whether the five above-named defendants have qualified immunity in this case, the Court makes a three-pronged inquiry. … To withstand a defense of qualified immunity at the summary judgment stage, a plaintiff must assert a violation of a constitutional or statutory right; that right must have been clearly established at the time of the violation

Hermann v. Cook

240 F. Supp. 2d 626 · District Court, W.D. Kentucky · Jan 22, 2003

Qualified immunity is an affirmative defense that shields government officials performing discretionary functions from liability for civil damages where their conduct does “not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … Defendants bear the burden of pleading the qualified immunity defense, but Plaintiff bears the burden of showing that Defendants’ conduct violated a right so clearly established that a rea *630 sonable official would have

Hawkins v. Boone

786 F. Supp. 2d 328 · District Court, District of Columbia · May 23, 2011

“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 such a situation, they should not lose their qualified immunity. See Atherton v.

BALLHEIMER v. BATTS

District Court, S.D. Indiana · Mar 20, 2020

The qualified immunity analysis poses two questions: (1) whether a defendant violated a constitutional right, and (2) whether the right was clearly established at the 11 This determination hinges on the assumption that … If the warrant was not properly procured, the Officers cannot find protection under qualified immunity for violating Ballheimer’s clearly established right against a warrantless, intrusive medical search. Winston v.

Scott v. City of Cleveland

555 F. Supp. 2d 890 · District Court, N.D. Ohio · May 13, 2008

State actors faced with a civil suit under § 1983 may be immune from liability for damages, but they enjoy a qualified, not absolute, immunity Harlow v. … clearly established.

Estate of Saylor v. Regal Cinemas, Inc.

54 F. Supp. 3d 409 · District Court, D. Maryland · Oct 16, 2014

Under Harlow , government officials performing discretionary functions are entitled to qualified immunity from liability for damages to the extent that “their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … The entitlement to qualified immunity involves a two pronged inquiry: “first whether a constitutional violation occurred and second whether the right violated was clearly established.” Melgar v.

Rodriguez v. The City Of New York

District Court, S.D. New York · Aug 22, 2022

were not clearly established for the purposes of qualified immunity.” … established for the purposes of the qualified immunity analysis.

Soto v. Bushmaster Firearms International, LLC

139 F. Supp. 3d 560 · District Court, D. Connecticut · Oct 9, 2015

The record establishes that the immunity provided by this statute will also be asserted with regard to the claims against the other defendants. 5 The “no possibility” standard used to assess claims of fraudulent joinder aims … In contending that the plaintiffs’ claims against Riverview are clearly baseless in light of the immunity provided by the PLCAA, defendants -ask this Court to determine that the -word “use” in the negligent entrustment exception

Moore v. City of Ferguson

213 F. Supp. 3d 1138 · District Court, E.D. Missouri · Oct 4, 2016

“Qualified immunity is a defense available to government officials if they have not violated ‘clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.’ ” Amrine v. … Qualified immunity determinations are based on a two-part inquiry.

M.P., a Minor v. Monroe Local Schools

District Court, S.D. Ohio · Sep 30, 2021

"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' at the time of the challenged conduct." … Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 818 (1982) (Qualified immunity shields "government officials performing discretionary functions . . . from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established

Mossey v. City of Galveston, Tex.

94 F. Supp. 2d 793 · District Court, S.D. Texas · Apr 25, 2000

Plaintiff’s Claim of Unlawful Arrest Is Barred by Qualified Immunity An individual has a clearly established right to be free from unlawful arrest. See Duckett v. City of Cedar Park, 950 F.2d 272, 278 (5th Cir.1992). … Plaintiff’s Claim of Excessive Force Is Not Barred by Qualified Immunity Established law clearly provides that Plaintiff has a Fourteenth Amendment right to be free from the use of excessive force by police.

Aspinwall v. Herrin

879 F. Supp. 1227 · District Court, S.D. Georgia · Dec 27, 1994

Herrin is entitled to qualified immunity on Plaintiffs’ claim because it was not clearly established in January of 1993 that a Georgia sheriff was bound by a county merit system. … Under the objective reasonableness standard for qualified immunity, Plaintiffs have the burden of proving that Herrin’s actions violated clearly established constitutional law.

Mendez v. City of Chicago

District Court, N.D. Illinois · Sep 20, 2024

violated his Fourth Amendment right or that they violated a clearly established right. … Davis, 878 F.3d 226, 234 (7th Cir. 2017) (finding that case that was decided four months after events in question could not clearly establish any rights for the purposes of qualified immunity); Reynolds v.

Lopez v. Youngblood

609 F. Supp. 2d 1125 · District Court, E.D. California · Mar 31, 2009

Re: Court Returnees, Qualified Immunity and Eleventh Amendment Immunity 16). … Re: Court Returnees, Qualified Immunity and Eleventh Amendment Immunity 20-21).

Joseph v. Donahue

392 F. Supp. 3d 973 · District Court, D. Maine · May 28, 2019

"Qualified immunity shields government officials from liability and the burdens of litigation in a § 1983 action *984 unless the official's conduct violates a clearly established constitutional or statutory right of which … A police officer is entitled to qualified immunity unless the facts shown by the plaintiff establish "(1) that a plaintiff's constitutional rights have been violated, and (2) those rights were so clearly established at the

Doninger v. Niehoff

594 F. Supp. 2d 211 · District Court, D. Connecticut · Jan 15, 2009

Doninger seeks to enforce was not clearly established at the time of the events in question, Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity on Ms. Doninger’s blog entry First Amendment claim. … qualified immunity.

Johnson v. City of Ecorse

137 F. Supp. 2d 886 · District Court, E.D. Michigan · Mar 29, 2001

Qualified Immunity Officers Smith and Herring plead the defense of qualified immunity. … The standard for that defense is that governmental officials performing discretionary functions are entitled to qualified immunity, which shields them from civil damages, provided their conduct did not violate a clearly-established

Cotton v. Mansour

634 F. Supp. 1094 · District Court, E.D. Michigan · Apr 11, 1986

To overcome the defense of qualified immunity it must appear that the defendant official violated clearly established constitutional or statutory rights of which a reasonable person would have known. ... … The Harlow test for qualified immunity applies to suits against state officials under § 1983. Id. at 818 n. 30, 102 S.Ct. at 2738 n. 30.