Case law

Willoughby v. Luster

717 F. Supp. 1439 · District Court, D. Nevada · May 2, 1989

On the basis of these affidavits, they argue that they are entitled to the defense of qualified immunity. … This finding, however, does not preclude defendants from renewing their claim of qualified immunity after the factual circumstances surrounding Willoughby’s disciplinary hearing have been more fully established.

Helms v. Rafter

853 F. Supp. 897 · District Court, W.D. North Carolina · Apr 14, 1994

Qualified Immunity Public officials are free from liability for monetary damages if they can plead and prove that their conduct did not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable … If it is undisputed that the right allegedly violated was clearly established at the time, the defendant asserting a qualified immunity defense may still be immune from damages for violation of that right if, under the circumstances

Williams v. Alhambra School District No. 68

234 F. Supp. 3d 971 · District Court, D. Arizona · Feb 13, 2017

The Board member Defendants are therefore entitled only to qualified immunity. … As discussed above, Williams has “adequately allegefd] the commission of acts that violated clearly established law,” as she must to defeat qualified immunity at this stage of litigation. See Mitchell v.

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

Morales v. Busbee

972 F. Supp. 254 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Jun 20, 1997

The qualified immunity doctrine provides that “government officials performing discretionary functions generally are shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as then-conduct does not violate clearly established statutory … The Third Circuit has recently made clear that “to defeat qualified immunity it is not sufficient that the right at issue be clearly established as a general matter.

Johnson v. Bay Area Rapid Transit

790 F. Supp. 2d 1034 · District Court, N.D. California · May 10, 2011

The court, however, granted qualified immunity to MacPherson, stating that as of 2005, it was not clearly established that such use was unconstitutional. Id. at 833 . … Nor is Gee entitled to qualified immunity. The law as to extended detentions absent the indicia of probable cause was clearly established at the time of the incident.

Duncan v. Goedeke & Cleasey

837 F. Supp. 846 · District Court, S.D. Texas · Nov 22, 1993

Under the doctrine of qualified immunity, federal officials performing discretionary functions generally are shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory … In order to overcome a defendant official’s qualified immunity from Bivens suits, a plaintiff claiming violation of constitutional rights must first show that these rights were clearly established at the time of the conduct

Stanfield v. City of Lima

244 F. Supp. 3d 638 · District Court, N.D. Ohio · Feb 24, 2017

Nevertheless, the doctrine of qualified immunity shields government officials from suit if “their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known … The second inquiry, whether qualified immunity shields an officer from suit, depends on whether, at the time of the incident, “the right was clearly established ... in light of the specific context of the case, not as a broad

Ross v. Lichtenfeld

755 F. Supp. 2d 467 · District Court, S.D. New York · Dec 6, 2010

A public official defendant performing a discretionary function is entitled to qualified immunity when “[his] conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would … Thus, Lichtenfeld would be entitled to qualified immunity if either (1) the constitutional prohibition he violated was not clearly established, or (2) a reasonable person in Lichtenfeld’s position would not have believed

Hegwood v. City of Eau Claire

668 F. Supp. 2d 1156 · District Court, W.D. Wisconsin · Nov 10, 2009

“cannot clearly establish a constitutional violation.”). … Because plaintiffs have failed to show that it was “clearly established” that applying Wisconsin’s disorderly house statute would *1168 be unconstitutional, I conclude that the individual defendants have qualified immunity

DEFOE EX REL. DEFOE v. Spiva

566 F. Supp. 2d 748 · District Court, E.D. Tennessee · Jul 10, 2008

Qualified immunity does not shield public officials from liability for violating constitutional rights which are clearly established. Saucier v. Katz, 533 U.S. 194 , 201, 121 S.Ct. 2151 , 150 L.Ed.2d 272 (2001). … If the court determines that the right is clearly established, qualified immunity does not shield the public officials from liability. Saucier, 533 U.S. at 202, 121 S.Ct. 2151 .

Williams ex rel. Williams v. Papi

30 F. Supp. 3d 306 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Jul 3, 2014

Qualified Immunity Defendant next argues that “an additional and fully sufficient basis exists to dismiss Plaintiffs Fourth Amendment claim, namely qualified immunity.” (Doc. 10 at 12.) … It has likewise held that when a “complaint failed to disclose whether the defendants’ actions did not violate a clearly established constitutional right, dismissal on qualified immunity grounds was premature.”

Chayo v. Kaladjian

844 F. Supp. 163 · District Court, S.D. New York · Feb 9, 1994

QUALIFIED IMMUNITY Qualified immunity shields government officials whose “conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known” Harlow v. … Accord Harlow, 457 U.S. at 819 , 102 S.Ct. at 2739 (stating that test for qualified immunity “focuses on the objective legal reasonableness of an official’s acts” in light of “clearly established” legal rules); Ying Jing

Gulledge v. Smart

691 F. Supp. 947 · District Court, D. South Carolina · Jul 29, 1988

In considering a defendant’s claim of qualified immunity, the court must focus on the particular facts involved in the alleged deprivation and whether the law at the time of the alleged deprivation was “clearly established … to qualified immunity as to that claim.

Ortiz v. Alvarez

341 F. Supp. 3d 1087 · District Court, E.D. California · Sep 21, 2018

Government officials enjoy qualified immunity from civil damages unless their conduct violates clearly established statutory or constitutional rights. Jeffers v. … In evaluating a qualified immunity defense, the court first considers: (1) whether the defendant's conduct violated a statutory or constitutional right; and (2) whether the right at issue was "clearly established."

Stephens v. City of Akron

729 F. Supp. 2d 945 · District Court, N.D. Ohio · Jul 27, 2010

Clearly Established Inquiry The law clearly establishes that an officer may not use deadly force to seize an unarmed suspect. … on the issue of qualified immunity.

Powers v. Northside Independent School District

143 F. Supp. 3d 545 · District Court, W.D. Texas · Oct 29, 2015

that Woods’s conduct was objectively unreasonable in light of clearly established law. … Qualified Immunity Defendants argue Plaintiffs’ § 1983 claim against Woods must nevertheless be dismissed because Woods is entitled to qualified immunity for his conduct. The Court agrees.

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.

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

Jones v. Chandrasuwan

76 F. Supp. 3d 603 · District Court, M.D. North Carolina · Dec 30, 2014

When subject to suit under § 1983, state and local officials may assert qualified immunity to shield them from liability for civil damages, “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … Finding that this right is not clearly established, this court determines that Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity, even if there was some sort of constitutional violation.