Case law

Baumeister v. New Mexico Commission for the Blind

425 F. Supp. 2d 1250 · District Court, D. New Mexico · Mar 20, 2006

. § 1983 generally are entitled to qualified immunity unless it is shown that their actions violated a specific constitutional right and that the right which they allegedly violated was clearly established at the time of … P. 12(b)(6), and “[ujnless the plaintiffs allegations state a claim of violation of clearly established law, a defendant pleading qualified immunity is entitled to dismissal before the commencement of discovery.”

Washington v. St. Albans Police Department

30 F. Supp. 2d 455 · District Court, D. Vermont · Oct 27, 1998

Alternatively, Defendants also raise the defense of qualified immunity. … A defense of qualified immunity is established if “(a) the defendants’ action did not violate clearly established law, or (b) it was objectively reasonable for the defendant to believe that his action did not violate such

David v. District of Columbia

436 F. Supp. 2d 83 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jun 30, 2006

However, “[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 would … her clearly established Fourth Amendment rights under color of state law.

CUEBAS v. Davila

618 F. Supp. 2d 124 · District Court, D. Puerto Rico · Mar 31, 2009

Defendant Burgos’s right to qualified immunity The defense of qualified immunity shields “public officials from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … Therefore, the first step to ascertain if Burgos is entitled to a defense of qualified immunity is whether Plaintiffs’ allegations claim a violation of clearly established law.

Hernandez v. Selsky

572 F. Supp. 2d 446 · District Court, S.D. New York · Aug 27, 2008

“[Pjublic officials ... are protected by qualified immunity from civil liability for actions taken in their official capacity, if those actions were objectively reasonable in light of clearly established rules then extant … “Hence, a defendant is not liable if he did not violate clearly established law or it was objectively reasonable for him to believe that he was not violating clearly established law.”

Brown v. Pepe

42 F. Supp. 3d 310 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Sep 8, 2014

any of Brown’s “clearly established” constitutional rights. … Qualified immunity attaches to discretionary conduct of government officials that “does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Harlow v.

Kroll v. United States Capitol Police

683 F. Supp. 824 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jun 22, 1987

The Court now briefly elaborates on the claims of qualified immunity. … In Harlow the Supreme Court recognized that governmental officials may be entitled to qualified immunity “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable

McSean

District Court, E.D. Missouri · Jan 23, 2026

A two-step inquiry applies to a qualified-immunity defense: 1) whether the plaintiff has alleged facts to show a violation of a constitutional right, and 2) whether that right was clearly established at the time of the … Hall, 828 F.3d 298, 305 (4th Cir. 2016) (officer entitled to qualified immunity where plaintiff had not directed court to any case that would have clearly warmed officer that conduct violated First Amendment rights)).

Lytes v. Smith

11 F. Supp. 3d 527 · District Court, D. South Carolina · Mar 28, 2014

Qualified Immunity Defendants next assert that they are entitled to qualified immunity 8 because even assuming the court finds a violation of Plaintiffs constitutional rights, their conduct did not violate “clearly established … Furthermore, because Plaintiff has failed to establish a violation of his constitutional rights, the court need not address whether Plaintiffs asserted rights were “clearly established” for purposes of qualified immunity.

Jenkins v. Cnty. of Washington

126 F. Supp. 3d 255 · District Court, N.D. New York · Aug 27, 2015

Defendants to believe that their acts did not violate any such clearly established rights. … a single case in this Circuit that rendered the rights in question clearly established.

Demster v. CITY OF LENEXA, KANSAS

352 F. Supp. 2d 1165 · District Court, D. Kansas · Jan 18, 2005

Plaintiffs respond by arguing that qualified immunity does not apply in this case because the officers violated plaintiffs’ clearly established Fourth Amendment Rights. … The court, however, finds that no clearly established right was violated by defendants’ conduct.

Burgess v. West

817 F. Supp. 1520 · District Court, D. Kansas · Mar 25, 1993

To summarize, public officials enjoy qualified immunity from civil damages liability “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have … -Once the defendant has successfully raised the qualified immunity defense, plaintiff must come “forward with facts or allegations to show both that the defendants’ alleged conduct violated the law and that the law was clearly

McLaughlin v. CASLER

634 F. Supp. 2d 881 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Jun 8, 2009

to qualified immunity. … with due process, and (3) the undisputed facts establish that Casler and Fritz are entitled to qualified immunity.

Gratz v. Bollinger

122 F. Supp. 2d 811 · District Court, E.D. Michigan · Dec 13, 2000

Under the qualified immunity doctrine, “government officials performing discretionary functions generally are shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory … According to the Board, its actions must violate “clearly established legal principles” for its Eleventh Amendment immunity to be abrogated. (Id.) (emphasis in original).

Weigle v. Pifer ex rel. City of Vienna Police Department

139 F. Supp. 3d 760 · District Court, S.D. West Virginia · Oct 14, 2015

These material disagreements preclude the application of qualified immunity to the officers at this juncture. The right to be free from excessive force during an arrest is a clearly established constitutional right. … Our Court of Appeals has explained that, in circumstances where qualified immunity is invoked, if there is a “genuine question of material fact regarding ‘[w]hether the conduct allegedly violative of [such a clearly established

Patino v. Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department

207 F. Supp. 3d 1158 · District Court, D. Nevada · Sep 14, 2016

“[T]he 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 … whether the constitutional right was clearly established in light of the specific context of the case.

Kerns v. Independent School District No. 31

984 F. Supp. 2d 1144 · District Court, N.D. Oklahoma · Oct 31, 2013

Qualified Immunity Defendants have raised the defense of qualified immunity with respect to claims against Alexander in his individual capacity. … Qualified immunity can shield Alexander from liability for civil damages if his conduct “d[id] not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.”

Nelson v. Stalder

135 F. Supp. 2d 745 · District Court, E.D. Louisiana · Feb 13, 2001

of the clearly established legal rules. … The court finds that Nelson has satisfied his burden of rebutting defendants’ qualified immunity defense by establishing that the defendants’ actions violated a law which the court finds was clearly established, and by establishing

Starr v. Warden, et al.

2006 DNH 110 · District Court, D. New Hampshire · Sep 27, 2006

Qualified Immunity. … A government official is entitled to qualified immunity from personal liability if the challenged "■'conduct [did] not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person

Lee v. McCue

410 F. Supp. 2d 221 · District Court, S.D. New York · Jan 20, 2006

The Defense of Qualified Immunity: Waiver Defendants argue that the individual officers involved in the arrest are entitled to qualified immunity as to plaintiffs federal claims. … Defendants concede that “freedom from false arrest, false imprisonment, and excessive force are clearly established rights.” Br. at 6.