Case law

McKnight v. Kingsboro

District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Sep 6, 2024

At this stage of the litigation, these averments are sufficient to establish that Defendants Ferrari and Heine violated clearly established law for the purposes of qualified immunity. See Dayoub v. … Additionally, the “clearly established” test relates only to a qualified immunity, not a sovereign immunity, analysis. Brautigam, 684 F.

Keesee v. Johnson

District Court, E.D. Arkansas · Jan 19, 2024

Burrows is also entitled to qualified immunity because his acts were authorized by a court order and thus did not violate Keesee’s clearly established statutory rights. See Frierson v. Goetz, 227 F. … Louis, 39 F.4th 494, 507 (8th Cir. 2022) (reversing denial of qualified immunity “because it is not clearly established that the intracorporate conspiracy doctrine does not apply to § 1983 conspiracy claims”).

Langford v. Johnson

District Court, District of Columbia · Jan 9, 2020

Defendants contend that plaintiff has pled no facts to support a § 1983 claim and that they “are therefore entitled to qualified immunity.” Defs.’ Mot. at 1. … It concludes nonetheless that the defendants are entitled to qualified immunity since the allegations fail to show their violation of a “clearly established statutory or constitutional right.” Harlow v.

Mendoza v. Herrera

District Court, N.D. Illinois · Jul 14, 2020

Qualified immunity “shields officials from civil liability so long as their conduct ‘does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.’” … In response to defendants’ motion for summary judgment as to qualified immunity, plaintiff does not identify a case that clearly establishes that his constitutional rights were violated.

SCANLON v. LAWSON

District Court, D. New Jersey · Sep 29, 2020

Thus, Plaintiff has not established a constitutional violation for failure to protect and the Court need not proceed to the qualified immunity analysis. … Therefore, even if deliberate indifference could be established on this record, Defendants Balicki and Surrency, in their individual capacities, would be entitled to qualified immunity.

Sensabaugh v. Krznarich

District Court, E.D. Wisconsin · Sep 5, 2023

To defeat qualified immunity, plaintiff must show that he was deprived of a constitutional right that was “clearly established at the time and under the circumstances presented.” Bianchi v. … It would be error for me to find that the general “right to be free of excessive force” is clearly established law for the purposes of qualified immunity. Emmons, 139 S.

Aguilar v. Moyer

District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Jan 26, 2023

the right was clearly established. … Moyer is entitled to qualified immunity.

Clabough

District Court, E.D. North Carolina · Mar 18, 2026

entitled to qualified immunity.”). … Forsythe, 472 U.S. 511, 526 (1985) (“Unless the plaintiff's allegations state a claim of violation of clearly established law, a defendant pleading qualified immunity is entitled to dismissal before the commencement

Hyman v. Lewis

District Court, E.D. Michigan · Nov 14, 2019

The complaint fails to state a claim under § 1983; further, because Plaintiff has not articulated a constitutional violation by the individual defendants, they are entitled to qualified immunity. … Callahan, 555 U.S. 223, 231 (2009) (qualified immunity provides immunity from suit for government officials “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a

Washington v. St. Louis, Missouri, City of

District Court, E.D. Missouri · Mar 31, 2021

Defendants assert that the individual defendants are entitled to qualified immunity because “their conduct comported with and did not violate clearly established law.” Doc. [11-1] at 13. … immunity because it was not clearly established at the time of the incident that their conduct was a violation of Mr.

Strickland v. City of Las Cruces

District Court, D. New Mexico · Mar 27, 2025

(Doc. 63) at 11.1 Alternatively, Defendants argue they are “entitled to qualified immunity, pursuant to Wilson, 52 F.3d 1547, because the law was not clearly established at the time of the incident.” Id. … Even if the Court determined Defendant Officers’ PIT maneuver was objectively unreasonable, the Officers are entitled to qualified immunity because performing the PIT maneuver did not violate clearly established law.

Irvin v. Prentiss County, Mississippi

District Court, N.D. Mississippi · Jan 27, 2021

Clifton, 29 F.3d 1012 (5th Cir. 1994) (holding that law enforcement officers are entitled to qualified immunity “unless it is shown that, at the time of the incident, [the officer] violated a clearly established constitutional … The Defendants contend that Irvin cannot establish deliberate indifference, relying in large part on various affidavits attached to their Motion [56].

Novak v. City of Parma

District Court, N.D. Ohio · Feb 24, 2021

Qualified immunity shields government officials from civil damages liability unless the official violated a statutory or constitutional right that was clearly established at the time of the challenged conduct. … Seitzinger, 363 F. 3d 645, 648 (7th Cir. 2004) (awarding officer qualified immunity and holding that the officer’s consultation with prosecutor “goes far” to establish qualified immunity); Dixon v.

Manetta v. County of Macomb

955 F. Supp. 771 · District Court, E.D. Michigan · Feb 12, 1997

Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 818 , 102 S.Ct. 2727, 2738 , 73 L.Ed.2d 396 (1982) (qualified immunity shields government officials performing discretionary functions from liability under § 1983 unless their conduct violates clearly … ; rather, they are subject to only qualified immunity).

Doubleday v. Ruh

93 Daily Journal DAR 9706 · District Court, E.D. California · Jun 11, 1993

As clearly held by In Re California Public Utilities Com’n, 892 F.2d 778, 781 (9th Cir.1989), the work product immunity cannot be claimed by one who would ordinarily hold the right to assert the immunity 5 unless that person … Assertion of work product is not assertion of a privilege, but rather assertion of a qualified immunity. Admiral Ins v. U.S.D.C. (Ariz.), 881 F.2d 1486, 1494 (9th Cir.1989).

Shabazz v. Cole

69 F. Supp. 2d 177 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Jun 25, 1999

Qualified immunity exists insofar as defendants’ “ ‘conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional law of which a reasonable person would have known.’ ” Elliott v. … Thus, where the supervisor is not directly involved in the underlying violation, “the ‘clearly established’ prong of the qualified immunity inquiry is satisfied when (1) the subordinate’s actions violated a clearly established

Mojica Carrion v. Wetzel

District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Jul 13, 2023

Defendants argue that Mojica Carrion’s claims are barred by qualified immunity because the constitutional right which he contends was violated was not clearly established until after the incident underlying his lawsuit … clearly established by Procunier); Martin v.

Torres v. Madrid

District Court, D. New Mexico · Jun 10, 2021

Casper, 507 F.3d 1260, 1265 (10th Cir. 2007) (“[I]t is well established that limited discovery may be necessary to resolve qualified immunity claims on summary judgment.”). … of the defendant’s qualified immunity assertion.”

Trujillo v. Central New Mexico Correctional Facility

District Court, D. New Mexico · Aug 19, 2021

Qualified immunity law Qualified immunity protects public officials from liability “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights … Turning to the second prong of the qualified immunity analysis, Plaintiff does not cite any law supporting the claims in the complaint, much less clearly established law.

Wilansky v. Bakke

District Court, D. North Dakota · Apr 3, 2024

Accordingly, the individually-named Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity on Claim One of the Amended Complaint. See Jones v. … McNeese, 675 F.3d 1158, 1161 (8th Cir. 2012) (when deciding qualified immunity, the Court looks to (1) whether a constitutional violation has been adequately pled and (2) whether the right was clearly established at the