Case law

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.

Krogh v. Sweeney

195 F. Supp. 3d 1049 · District Court, D. Minnesota · Jul 14, 2016

Sweeney argues that he is immune from suit under the doctrine of qualified immunity. … “[QJualified immunity protects [law enforcement] officers from personal liability under § 1983 insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established ... constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have

Lanigan v. Village of East Hazel Crest

913 F. Supp. 1202 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Jan 26, 1996

“The doctrine of qualified immunity shields public officials ... from damages unless their conduct was unreasonable in light of clearly established law.” Elder v. … Additionally, the doctrine of qualified immunity shields all three officers because their conduct was not unreasonable in light of clearly established law at that time.

Ramirez v. Holmes

921 F. Supp. 204 · District Court, S.D. New York · Mar 31, 1996

“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’ for him … For Ramirez to defeat Holmes’s use of the qualified immunity shield, he must demonstrate that he possessed a clearly established constitutional right with respect to his claims.

Avilés v. Figueroa

195 F. Supp. 3d 435 · District Court, D. Puerto Rico · Jul 16, 2016

Qualified Immunity Lastly, this Court how moves to consider whether Co-Defendant Martinez-Ortiz is protected by qualified immunity. The qualified immunity doctrine offers public officials complete immunity from suit. … In order to *449 grant qualified immunity, the First Circuit has clearly laid out a two-step process in which the court must engage: The two-step procedure for assessing a plea of qualified immunity at the motion to dismiss

Christopher Cremeans v. William Wrenn, Christopher Kench, Michael Zenk, Jon Fouts, and Nichole Kipphut

2019 DNH 060 · District Court, D. New Hampshire · Mar 28, 2019

capacities are barred by the doctrine of qualified immunity because such a right was not clearly established in 2017. … Qualified immunity shields individual officers from claims for damages “‘unless (1) they violated a federal statutory or constitutional right, and (2) the unlawfulness of their conduct was clearly established at the time

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. HP Pelzer Automotive Systems, Inc. (TV2)

District Court, E.D. Tennessee · Mar 2, 2020

and defendant affidavits represented “nothing more than conflicting witness testimony”); Wayne, 36 F.3d at 530 (upholding district court’s denial of attorney fees where defendants won summary judgment on the basis of qualified … immunity, but plaintiffs also sued for injunctive relief, which was not barred by immunity); Beard v.

Diaz v. Bullock

268 F. Supp. 3d 640 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Aug 3, 2017

The basis for the Court’s finding as' to qualified immunity is that to the extent there is a constitutional right at issue, it is not clearly established. … As a result, and at a minimum, the Officer Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity because the constitutional right is not clearly established.

Belanger v. City of Hartford

578 F. Supp. 2d 360 · District Court, D. Connecticut · Jun 19, 2008

“The doctrine of qualified immunity shields police officers acting in their official capacity from suits for damages under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 , unless their actions violate clearly-established rights of which an objectively … most favorable to the Plaintiff, could conclude that the defendant’s actions were objectively unreasonable in light of clearly established law.”

Hilliard v. Walker's Party Store, Inc.

903 F. Supp. 1162 · District Court, E.D. Michigan · Oct 4, 1995

To defeat defendants’ claims of qualified immunity, plaintiffs must establish that defendant state officers deprived plaintiff Thomas Lee of a clearly established federal statutory or constitutional right while acting under … Although the third right was not clearly established at the time of commission, a municipality is not entitled to qualified immunity as is an individual state defendant. See Garner v.

Mayberry v. Spicer

808 F. Supp. 563 · District Court, E.D. Michigan · Nov 24, 1992

A Defendant has “qualified immunity unless Plaintiff’s rights were so clearly established when the acts were committed that any officer in the Defendant’s position, measured objectively, would have clearly understood that … To prevail over a claim *567 of qualified immunity, Plaintiff must set forth a particular and clearly established violation. Garvie v. Jackson, 845 F.2d 647, 650 (6th Cir.1988).

Mitchell v. Coffey County Hospital

903 F. Supp. 1415 · District Court, D. Kansas · Sep 25, 1995

QUALIFIED IMMUNITY The individual defendants contend that they are entitled to qualified immunity on plaintiffs due process claim because the law was not clearly established at the time of plaintiffs termination. … This exception to the rule that the qualified immunity defense fails where the defendant violated a clearly established right applies only rarely. Id.

Prisma Zona Exploratoria De Puerto Rico, Inc. v. Calderon

154 F. Supp. 2d 245 · District Court, D. Puerto Rico · Aug 14, 2001

Defendants responded by filing a motion to dismiss based on Eleventh Amendment immunity and qualified immunity grounds. The motion to dismiss stands submitted. … Determination of whether a reasonable official should have understood that a specific conduct violated a clearly established constitutional right, or whether an entity is to be considered an “arm of the state”, are fact intensive

Christensen v. Quinn

45 F. Supp. 3d 1043 · District Court, D. South Dakota · Sep 10, 2014

Because the reconstructed affidavit did not establish probable cause, Quinn is not entitled to qualified immunity on that basis. *1081 Quinn argues that she relied on the advice of Landeen-Hoeke, which should establish that … Even if the court assumes that Landeen-Hoeke is only entitled to qualified immunity for those acts, Christensen would still have the burden of showing that the act in question violated a clearly established constitutional

Farrelly v. City of Concord

2012 DNH 166 · District Court, D. New Hampshire · Oct 1, 2012

Carroll are not entitled to qualified immunity because the unconstitutionality of RSA 644:4, I(f) was clearly established by the New Hampshire Supreme Court’s decision in Pierce. … Even s o , the officers are entitled to qualified immunity because Farrelly’s right to send the e-mails in question was not clearly established at the time of his arrest.

Hemmah v. City of Red Wing

592 F. Supp. 2d 1134 · District Court, D. Minnesota · Dec 30, 2008

Qualified Immunity Defendants Kuhlmann and Seymour 2 seek judgment as a matter of law on the ground that they are protected by qualified immunity. 3 The doctrine of qualified immunity shields state actors performing discretionary … Dist., 512 F.3d 472, 476 (8th Cir.2008), the Court concludes that Hemmah’s right was not clearly established in this case and that, consequently, Defendants Kuhlmann and Seymour are entitled to qualified immunity.

Gonzalez v. Romanisko

744 F. Supp. 95 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Aug 22, 1990

The Defendant, Mastruzzo, here moves for judgment notwithstanding the verdict based on allegations of qualified immunity and insufficiency of the evidence. … The principles of qualified immunity that we have reaffirmed today require that Anderson be permitted to argue that he is entitled to summary judgment on the ground that, in light of the clearly estab *98 lished principles

Gilhaus v. Gardner Edgerton Unified School District No. 231

138 F. Supp. 3d 1228 · District Court, D. Kansas · Oct 6, 2015

’s violation of a constitutional right; and (2) that the right the. official violated was “clearly established” at the time of the challenged conduct. 62 Accordingly, the. qualified immunity defense must be resolved “at the … Defendants are not .entitled to qualified immunity on Gilhaus’ due process property interest claim because the facts as alleged demonstrate that Defendants violated Gilhaus’ clearly established constitutional rights.

Gomez Candelaria v. Rivera Rodríguez

218 F. Supp. 2d 66 · District Court, D. Puerto Rico · Feb 25, 2002

The general rule regarding qualified immunity is that government officials are immune from suit and liability when their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory authority or constitutional rights, which a reasonable … Accordingly, they argue that Defendants are not immune from liability since their unconstitutional actions occurred when the law regarding patronage dismissals was “clearly established”.

ESTATE OF GAITHER EX REL. GAITHER v. District of Columbia

655 F. Supp. 2d 69 · District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 8, 2009

Legal Standard for Qualified Immunity “The doctrine of qualified immunity protects government officials ‘from liability for civil damages insofar as then-conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … the officer’s conduct clearly violated established law.”